Message for Bind-users

[Kevin Darcy]

Hans Hohenner wrote:

> Since this is clearly an important issue to you, my suggestion is to author
> a RFP proposing the change.  It's better to work within the system (such
> that it is, the Internet can be a pretty chaotic place) than go off on a
> tangent.   Better yet, why not write one to allow the  Unicode character
> set to be used... and include the underscore in this list.  I'm sure you'll
> please lots of people not in USA that way too, and maybe get enough of a
> consensus to push it through.

Straw Man argument. I haven't expressed an opinion one way or another on unicode
characters. Furthermore, if I were to make a _cause_celebre_  out of
underscore-acceptance, I'd think I'd be pragmatic enough to decouple it from any
unicode proposal, given the dismal record that such proposals have historically
had in getting accepted...

> If that gets accepted by the IETF, then the bind authors will (most likely,
> I'm not one of those esteemed folks, and can't really speak for them...)
> incorporate the changes into the code base.  I'm quite willing to bet that
> their goal is to follow the standards that are in place, not arbitrarily
> change them.

I'm not sure I understand you here: are you saying that ISC would purposely flout
an Internet standard just because of a personal bias against underscores? Or are
you trying to make the case that a standard which allows underscores in hostnames
is somehow inherently *more* arbitrary than one which prohibits them?


- Kevin

> Hans
>
> At 08:02 PM 6/13/2000 -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> >flaps at dgp.toronto.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> writes:
> > > >McNair, Dan wrote:
> > > >> Correct me if I am wrong, but the underscore is not a legal character
> > > >> in any domain name.  This is not a limitation of BIND, it is a
> > restriction
> > > >> imposed by the domain name standard.  My guess is that there are both
> > > >> practical and historical reasons for the restriction.
> > > >
> > > >There is no "practical" reason other than "this is the standard we agreed
> > > >to way back when and we're afraid to change it because then we might break
> > > >some lazy programmers' code (possibly causing security holes, cancer,
> > > >famine, or maybe even global thermonuclear devastation)".
> > >
> > > Is there some particular reason you think underscores *should* be permitted
> > > in hostnames?
> >
> >It enlarges the available namespace and offers a higher degree of naming
> >flexibility.
> >
> > > The standard way to produce something looking like a space in a hostname
> > > is to use a hyphen.
> >
> >It's a moot point what is "standard" and what isn't; I thought we were
> >discussing whether the standard actually makes any sense.
> >
> > > A working system doesn't need multiple ways to do the same thing.
> > > Hyphens suffice.
> >
> >Well, we don't *need* DNS at all: everyone could just use dot-notation IP
> >addresses, or, for that matter, strings of 1's and 0's. DNS, and underscores,
> >enhance the human/computer interface, or at least are perceived to by many of
> >the humans who use the interface. It's not a matter of what "suffices", but of
> >whether the cost of the restriction, or its relaxation, outweighs the benefit.
> >
> >
> >- Kevin
> >
> > >