trailing hyphens

Jim Kingdon

unread,

Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00

to

I can't help but things have gotten to a very strange state when there
is a big controversy because people are following the RFC's (RFC1035,
section 2.3.1, updated by RFC1123 section 2.1).

http://www.icann.org/nsi/trailing-hyphens.htm

I suppose it isn't going to be much remembered, in the grand scheme of
things....

Strange

unread,

Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00

to

> http://www.icann.org/nsi/trailing-hyphens.htm

Hmm. Indeed, when the RFCs are clear on it, ICANN is pushing it, and the
registrar is willing to undo the registrations and change their software,
there isn't much of a controversey. Sounds like someone just left off the
check for the trailing hyphen in this week's registration CGI at netsol --
anyone know if they had already been checking for a leading hyphen?

-M

--
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213)| Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
str...@netural.com li...@foad.org str...@cultural.com str...@ispfh.org
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.

Richard J. Sexton

unread,

Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00

to

In article <85aila$s34$1...@ucan.foad.org>, Strange <li...@ucan.foad.org> wrote:
>Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I can't help but things have gotten to a very strange state when there
>> is a big controversy because people are following the RFC's (RFC1035,
>> section 2.3.1, updated by RFC1123 section 2.1).
>
>> http://www.icann.org/nsi/trailing-hyphens.htm
>
>> I suppose it isn't going to be much remembered, in the grand scheme of
>> things....
>
>Hmm. Indeed, when the RFCs are clear on it, ICANN is pushing it, and the
>registrar is willing to undo the registrations and change their software,
>there isn't much of a controversey. Sounds like someone just left off the
>check for the trailing hyphen in this week's registration CGI at netsol --
>anyone know if they had already been checking for a leading hyphen?

Yes.

Actually trailing dash *domains* are legal. Trialing dash *hosts* are
not. So you can register the domain, you just can't use it.

--
Richard Sexton | ric...@tangled.web | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719

Strange

unread,

Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00

to

Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
> Actually trailing dash *domains* are legal. Trialing dash *hosts* are
> not. So you can register the domain, you just can't use it.

Ugh. That set of inter-referential RFCs reads like the CFR.

So, smtp.iqwufg-.com would be a legal host and domain (absent the
agreement under discussion) while smtp-.iqwufg.com would not be a legal
host? And no one could just use iqwufg-.com? How ambiguously do the host
vs. domain rules work out?

-M, ow.

Richard J. Sexton

unread,

Jan 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/9/00

to

No. a- is a valid domain label, but can't be the target if an a, ns or mx record

Kai Henningsen

unread,

Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00

to

ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) wrote on 09.01.00 in <85beh0$3q$1...@ns1.vrx.net>:

> No. a- is a valid domain label, but can't be the target if an a, ns or mx
> record

You mean just like \001?

Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)

Richard J. Sexton

unread,

Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00

to

In article <7WlXD...@khms.westfalen.de>,

Kai Henningsen <kaih=7WlXD...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) wrote on 09.01.00 in <85beh0$3q$1...@ns1.vrx.net>:
>
>> No. a- is a valid domain label, but can't be the target if an a, ns or mx
>> record
>
>You mean just like \001?

Yeah and like vrx-.vrx.net