freebsd stable - Oct 2003 - good address will not resolve

> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:01:54 -0400
> From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
> Subject: Re: good address will not resolve in freebsd (_ in host
> 	names)
> No, but like I said, more and more people are starting to use
> it. What is the big deal about _ vs - ? I am all for following
> convention, but sometimes it leads to the Judean Popular
> People's front vs the People's popular Front of Judea type
> stuff.... Also, as someone else pointed out, I think the RFC
> has changed since then.
I can't find an RFC that says the host name has changed. I remeber
first setting up DNS systems in the early-mid'90's when and
underscore was permitted, but it was noted that it would stop being
supported in the future. The RFC the other person refered to shows
that almost anything is permitted on the internal names - but it
never specifically addresses host names, as it done in RFC1034
I told the people at that site they would have to change, but they
didn't bother to do that until things started breaking.

It appears that MS is the culprit.  The refernce in what I read
point to an alternate character set and points to RFC2181 - but
that does not appear to be correct.

It's part of the W2K DNS and you can configure it four any one
of four choices. Strict ANSI - RFC 1123, Non-RFC ANSI - adds
underscore, Multibyte (UTF8) - MS naming standard, or
Any - where any character can be used.

The notes say that in >strictly private networks< MS suggests that
the Unicode standard works well.  The article also says you have to
decide to enforce MS standards or have dual support.

Since MS machines aren't running on most of the internet backbone
and virtually all are non-MS, changing things at this stage of the
game would surely create a lot of non-findable systems. I'm not
going to change any of my name servers.  I have enough problem with
one of the European registrars refusing to accept a client
registration as my servers don't meet THEIR standards.  But that
is .it - and it was only one - so I'm not about to change things
that work.

A question here - will the registrars permit registering a name
with an underscore.
> End of freebsd-stable Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3
> *********************************************
Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

> 
> > Message: 14
> > Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:01:54 -0400
> > From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
> > Subject: Re: good address will not resolve in freebsd (_ in host
> > 	names)
> 
> > No, but like I said, more and more people are starting to use
> > it. What is the big deal about _ vs - ? I am all for following
> > convention, but sometimes it leads to the Judean Popular
> > People's front vs the People's popular Front of Judea type
> > stuff.... Also, as someone else pointed out, I think the RFC
> > has changed since then.
> 
> I can't find an RFC that says the host name has changed. I remeber
> first setting up DNS systems in the early-mid'90's when and
> underscore was permitted, but it was noted that it would stop being
> supported in the future. The RFC the other person refered to shows
> that almost anything is permitted on the internal names - but it
> never specifically addresses host names, as it done in RFC1034
> I told the people at that site they would have to change, but they
> didn't bother to do that until things started breaking.

	Underscores have NEVER been legal in hostnames.

	Hostnames and domainnames are overlapping sets.

	There are hostnames that cannot be expressed in the DNS.

	There are domainnames that are not legal hostnames.

	RFC 1034 never said what was legal in a hostname.  It say
	what is legal in a domainname.
> It appears that MS is the culprit.  The refernce in what I read
> point to an alternate character set and points to RFC2181 - but
> that does not appear to be correct.
> 
> It's part of the W2K DNS and you can configure it four any one
> of four choices. Strict ANSI - RFC 1123, Non-RFC ANSI - adds
> underscore, Multibyte (UTF8) - MS naming standard, or
> Any - where any character can be used.
> 
> The notes say that in >strictly private networks< MS suggests that
> the Unicode standard works well.  The article also says you have to
> decide to enforce MS standards or have dual support.
> 
> Since MS machines aren't running on most of the internet backbone
> and virtually all are non-MS, changing things at this stage of the
> game would surely create a lot of non-findable systems. I'm not
> going to change any of my name servers.  I have enough problem with
> one of the European registrars refusing to accept a client
> registration as my servers don't meet THEIR standards.  But that
> is .it - and it was only one - so I'm not about to change things
> that work.
> 
> A question here - will the registrars permit registering a name
> with an underscore.
	The registrars don't permit underscores because they know
	people will mis-use them.
> > End of freebsd-stable Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3
> > *********************************************
> 
> Bill
> -- 
> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org