Hostname Naming Compliance

[Mark Andrews]

In message <49A755BF.9030106 at chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>     
> >>> 	When does it stop?  What will be the next character you
> >>> 	"just have to have"?  At the moment you have 1 inter label
> >>> 	seperator and 1 intra label seperator.  That should be
> >>> 	enough for anyone.
> >>>       
> >
> > On 25.02.09 08:49, Peter Laws wrote:
> >   
> >> Like 640k of memory.
> >>     
> >
> > the main effect of allowing underscores would be that some companies would
> > want/need to buy much more domains, e.g.
> >
> > a-b
> > a_b
> >
> > and 
> >
> > a-b-c
> > a_b_c
> > a_b-c
> > a-b_c
> >
> > I don't see any benefit in that.
> >
> >   
> >> Unicode is coming (as fast as IPv6, maybe faster :), so maybe it /is/ time
>  
> >> to update the naming standards.
> >>     
> >
> > and maybe it is not. If people can't behave, adjusting standards may be the
> > worst solution.
>    
> But, as far as I can tell, there's no *practical* reason to disallow 
> underscores, other than the fact that it may trip the standards-checking 
> code of some _other_ piece of software. So, piece of software A 
> disallows underscores because it's worried about causing a problem for 
> piece of software B, and piece of software B keeps the restriction 
> because it's worried about about causing a problem for piece of software 
> C, and piece of software C keeps the restriction because it's worried 
> about causing a problem for piece of software A.
> 
> Do you see how self-defeating that is? Everyone is looking out for 
> everyone else, yet there is no actual *real* problem with allowing 
> underscores. They're all just trying to protect each other against an 
> imagined threat.
>
> I've heard that in the old old days (70s, perhaps earlier) some 
> teletypes had a problem distinguishing between an underscore and a 
> backspace. That was a real honest-to-goodness *problem* with 
> underscores, and is probably why underscore was banned from hostnames in 
> the first place. But those teletypes are long gone. Rusted away or in a 
> museum somewhere. Get over it.
> 
> I agree with not changing standards to accommodate "bad behavior". But, 
> at the same time, the standards need to have a practical basis, not be 
> arbitrary or just a carryover from decades ago. As far as I can tell, 
> the underscore restriction, in particular, is just a legacy carryover 
> and has no practical use.
> 
> - Kevin

	W_h_e_r_e_ _i_s_ _t__h_e_ _h_o_s_t_._n_a_m_e__ _i_n_ _t_h_i___s_ ___l_i_n__e.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org