----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
No. See RFC 952
I think 952 is functionally obsolete, requireing a <24 char name length; I would have expected citations, perhaps, to 1535.
Care to expand?
Ok. RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123. This covers all legal hostnames in use today including those that do not fit in the DNS. The DNS supports hostnames up to 253 bytes (255 bytes in wire encoding). RFC 1123 allow hostnames to go to 255 bytes. I'm deliberately ignoring IDN's as they still need to map back into what is permitted by RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123.
And except on length and first-digit-allowed, 1123 punts naming to 952 (which doesn't really say) and in 6.1, to 1034 and 1035. So I know what my light night reading will be (unless Albitz, Liu, Mockapetris, or any of the BIND team are around on the list :-)
RFC 1535 is NOT a STANDARD. Not all RFC are created equal.
Typo. 1035 (as updated by whatever is on-point, if anything). And Mark: could you please trim your quoting a bit? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274