IP addresses in NS records seem to be breaking hostname resolution

[Simon Waters]

Mark_Andrews at isc.org wrote:
> 
>         Actually 209.44.8.1 isn't a hostname.  Go read RFC 1123 again.

Okay I'm always one to try and understand RFC's 

Urm there seems to be a typo in the reference in section 2.1.

"(see section 6.1.2.4)" - urm - maybe there is some subtlety of
compression that I'm missing, but I don't see how compression
affects the legality of hostnames.

> since at least the highest-level component label will be alphabetic.

Ah ha they seem to mandate that TLD's must have an alphabetic
character in - do ICANN know this ;)