Re: Last Call: On-Demand Mail Relay (ODMR) to Proposed Standard

[Graham Klyne <GK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:43 08/04/99 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> While RFC 2181 clarifies the intent that the DNS resolution service can
>> handle names containing arbitrary characters, it also recognizes that
>> particular applications can constrain the form of name allowed.
>> 
>> Specifically, RFC 1123 (sections 6.1.3.5 and 2.1) and RFC 952 jointly
>> indicate the restricted form indicated below as the valid form for Internet
>> host names.
>
>this is an ancient discussion.  careful reading will tell you that
>'hostname' is not defind beyond the file hosts.txt which became obsolete
>some years back.

If this is an ancient discussion, I don't believe it is adequately documented.

Based on the citations I quoted, I believe I am quite entitled to draw the
conclusion that I did, since material from RFC952 is used normatively by
RFC1123 in a general statement about "syntax of a legal Internet host
name", without any indication that this applies only to names in a
"hosts.txt" file.  The definition in RFC952 is stated as an a priori
assumption rather than a particular feature of the "hosts.txt" file.

Also, both RFC821 and <draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-10.txt> define the syntax
of a mail domain that is of the more restricted form.


I accept I could be wrong, but I do believe I have reasonable grounds for
the view I have expressed, and if the truth is something different then I
think the IETF needs to take steps to clearly document the true situation.

#g