I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com> wrote:
On Saturday night, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> postulated:
I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
It's truly unsigned? (15 bit)
-- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
unsigned?
16 bit integers. Ok, a lame joke. 22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available. What are you trying to name? -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin <joe@nethead.com> wrote:
On Saturday night, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> postulated:
I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
It's truly unsigned? (15 bit)
-- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
unsigned?
Technically, no. But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing that right on the first attempt. On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, "Day Domes" <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:07:41AM +0200, Per Carlson wrote:
On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, "Day Domes" <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
Technically, no.
But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing that right on the first attempt.
And imagine answering the phones... - Matt
Matthew said: And imagine answering the phones... Bender's Big Score. Is this for Jewish Hospital (AS 22694)? And many years ago I had jh.org, but domains were $70 back then and my wife thought I had too many... -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net. Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: <domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain> ... <name> ::= <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig> ... <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 -- -Jh
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die. the leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
<domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain> ... <name> ::= <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig> ... <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821 vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of Non-Ascii labels. That said, the world was much simpler last century. --bill
-- -Jh
In message <20101018024021.GC8924@vacation.karoshi.com.>, bmanning@vacation.kar oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us e, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die. the leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
<domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain> ... <name> ::= <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig> ... <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821 vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you *also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively you are limited to "<LD><LDH>*<LD>*{.<LD><LDH>*<LD>*}+". If you want to buy "!#$%^&*.com" go ahead but please don't expect anyone to change their mail software to support "bill@!#$%^&*.com" as a email address. The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035. There are lots of RFCs which confuse "domain name" with "domain style host name". Or confuse "domain name" with "a host name stored in the DNS". Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
-- -Jh
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <20101018024021.GC8924@vacation.karoshi.com.>, bmanning@vacation.kar oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us e, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die. the leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
<domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain> ... <name> ::= <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig> ... <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821 vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you *also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively you are limited to "<LD><LDH>*<LD>*{.<LD><LDH>*<LD>*}+".
If you want to buy "!#$%^&*.com" go ahead but please don't expect anyone to change their mail software to support "bill@!#$%^&*.com" as a email address.
The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
There are lots of RFCs which confuse "domain name" with "domain style host name". Or confuse "domain name" with "a host name stored in the DNS".
Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
-- -Jh
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 10/17/10 8:24 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type... they've since officially change the name of the company to 3m...
-- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <20101018024021.GC8924@vacation.karoshi.com.>, bmanning@vacation.kar oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us e, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die. the leading character restriction was lifted when the company 3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
<domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain> ... <name> ::= <a> <ldh-str> <let-dig> ... <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821 vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you *also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively you are limited to "<LD><LDH>*<LD>*{.<LD><LDH>*<LD>*}+".
If you want to buy "!#$%^&*.com" go ahead but please don't expect anyone to change their mail software to support "bill@!#$%^&*.com" as a email address.
The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
There are lots of RFCs which confuse "domain name" with "domain style host name". Or confuse "domain name" with "a host name stored in the DNS".
Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
-- -Jh
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Joel said: and not just because minnestoaminingandmanufacturing.com is hard to type... Also back then you could only have eight letters in your domain name. But it was free and only took 6-8 weeks to get. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On October 17, 2010 at 20:24 joe@nethead.com (Joe Hamelin) wrote:
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
When BU joined the internet and promptly brought down about a third of it with their host table entries one of the problems was a host named 3b (.bu.edu, it was an AT&T 3B5) which caused a 4bsd script to go into an infinite loop filling roots (/tmp) which back then crashed systems. Also, one-letter hostnames (a.bu.edu as an alias for bucsa.bu.edu, etc.) I know because basically it was my fault. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
RFC 821 defines the syntax for mail domains, not domain names in general.
RFC 821 hostnames are not the convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of Non-Ascii labels.
Host names are not mail domains. RFC 952 defined the syntax for host names. RFC 1034 recommends that labels in the DNS follow either 822 or 952 syntax (which are mostly the same). All of these were updated by RFC 1123 to allow leading digits. Internationalized domain names do not affect the restrictions on the syntax of what is put in the DNS. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
On Oct 17, 2010, at 7:16 PM, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit,
A valid actual hostname can start with a digit. Many do. I'm guessing 3com may have had something to do with that trend. RFC 1123 2.1 clarified that a couple of decades ago, so I doubt you'll find any running software that doesn't agree.
and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
There are several less obsolete RFCs that specify email addresses, they're all quite specific about what a valid hostname is in an email sense. 5321 is the latest, I think, section 4.1.2. Cheers, Steve
Day,
does anyone see any issues with this?
Please, I strongly urge you to consider the ergonomics in question. That name is REALLY hard to read, spell, pronounce, type, recognize, etc. Agreed that there are no technical roadblocks, but again, please use common sense and choose something that doesn't make everybody's life more complicated. A domain name is something that sticks for many years and is of daily use in many many areas, and even more when it is for designating a transit ISP. my 2 cents, cl.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Day Domes <daydomes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
Two helpful rules of thumb when picking a domain name: 1. Minimize spoken syllables. 2. Does it spell like it sounds? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
participants (13)
-
Barry Shein -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Claudio Lapidus -
Day Domes -
James Hess -
Joe Hamelin -
Joel Jaeggli -
Mark Andrews -
Matthew Palmer -
Per Carlson -
Steve Atkins -
Tony Finch -
William Herrin