Hostname Naming Compliance
Mark Andrews
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Fri Feb 27 03:29:31 UTC 2009
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
More information about the bind-users
mailing list