single-character host names

Matthew Pounsett matt at
Wed Feb 25 22:17:13 UTC 2009

On 25-Feb-2009, at 16:46, Mike Bernhardt wrote:

> So what is the accepted view on this currently? Is there another RFC  
> that
> has made it OK now?

I'm not going to say this definitively, because I'm not certain, but I  
think 952 may have been updated by a later RFC.  Certainly there are  
several examples of infrastructure, including the root name servers  
themselves, successfully using single-character host names.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the bind-users mailing list