[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Name forms in the requirements doc
- To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] Name forms in the requirements doc
- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:45:32 +0200
- Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:54:35 -0700
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
At 15:16 16.06.2000 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>The last paragraph of section 1.2 of the requirements document says:
>>The form specified for most protocols using the DNS is a limited form of
>>the master file format domain name. This limited form is defined in
>>[RFC1034] Section 3.5 and [RFC1123]. In most implementations of
>>applications today, domain names in the Internet have been limited to
>>the much more restricted forms used, e.g., in email. Those names are
>>limited to the ASCII upper and lower-case characters (interpreted in a
>>case-independent fashion), the digits, and the hyphen, with the further
>>restrictions that a name may not consist entirely of digits and that a
>>hyphen cannot occur at the beginning or end of a component or following
>Where did the restrictions of "may not consist entirely of digits" and "a
>hyphen cannot occur...following another hyphen" come from? I cannot find
>those in 1034 or 1123.
RFC 952, October 1985 is the original "hostname" spec.
However, note this from RFC 1123 2.1:
> If a dotted-decimal number can be entered without such
> identifying delimiters, then a full syntactic check must be
> made, because a segment of a host domain name is now allowed
> to begin with a digit and could legally be entirely numeric
> (see Section 126.96.36.199). However, a valid host name can never
> have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the
> highest-level component label will be alphabetic.
All digit segments *are* allowed, and in common use in Chinese .com domains,
for some reason.
The domainname i--d.com is also registered (by someone in Vienna).
So I think both restrictions are false and should not be deleted.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway