Thank you for this clear and refreshing KISS wording.<div>This certainly reflects the common lead user understanding. <br>jfc<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/3/9 Eric Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">My personal view is that broken code that isn't a defacto specification<br>
of the DNS, or broken specifications of things other than the DNS, need<br>
to go find their authors and get fixed, and not become dejure nuances of<br>
the "corrected" specifications of the DNS. In particular, it is<br>
reasonable for any zone admin, the IANA included, to make a<br>
registry-local rule reflecting momentary annoyance at the existence of<br>
well-known bugs, but that no such "rule" should be internalized to the<br>
DNS specs, with a vastly longer shelf-life than the random DNS<br>
(mis)using application.<br>
<br>
Yes, there is a bug (actually, a shared bug with multiple, possibly<br>
independent interoperable implementations of obvious brokenness), but<br>
666 is no different from AAA, and a five label sequence composed of<br>
numeric (or octal or hex) character values is safe as houses (if ugly),<br>
and it is possible to constrain allocation of label sequences so that<br>
label sequences terminating in numeric (or octal or hex) character<br>
values, and having fewer than five labels, are also not incorrectly<br>
interpreted by this bug-set as dotted quads.<br>Eric</blockquote></div></div></div>