nanog mailing list archives
Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links
From: randy () psg com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 11:42 PST
1. Bind implementation enforcing character set restrictions should be observed by system configurators.Pecularities of any particular implementation of a protocol should be irrelevant. We should read the RFCs.We intend that there be no difference between the effect of following either of above recommendations.
And that is well and proper from an implementor's view. But a natural and unavoidable difference between specification and implementation will remain. When looking for definition one should look at the RFC, not at code in some aribtrary language which runs on some arbitrary set of machines. When looking for clues on how one might hack it, the inverse is true. Both have their uses. randy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links, (continued)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Robert E. Seastrom (Jan 08)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Billy Biggs (Jan 08)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Vadim Antonov (Jan 07)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Dorian R. Kim (Jan 07)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Matthew Petach (Jan 08)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Vadim Antonov (Jan 08)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links James R. Cutler (Jan 08)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Dima Volodin (Jan 08)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Paul A Vixie (Jan 09)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: Domain names for ISP infrastructure links James R. Cutler (Jan 08)
