North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Underscores in host names
At 3:51 PM -0400 2005-05-18, Eric A. Hall wrote:
but it was wrong, and the need for it is past, and it's time for redress.So, you found some pre-existing rules, used them as cover for your problem, and now that your ~problem is fixed the pre-existing rules shouldn't matter to anybody anymore?
Who said the problem is fixed?
Man, did you get up on the wrong side of the world? Everything I've seen from you lately seems to be very acidic and bordering on intentionally insulting.Come on now, isn't it slightly possible that those rules were pre-existing for reasons that have nothing to do with you?
Can we try to have a decent intelligent discussion? More importantly, can't we have this discussion in a more appropriate place?
There is a solution for this problem. Use 32-bit character sets which are defined to include the entire collection of known character sets in all other languages on the planet.Alternatively (and what we have in the pre-existing rules) is to forbid those characters entirely, so that nobody is forced to kautau to a specific nationalized character set.
But this means you have to have a flag day, unless you can come up with some way to also be backwards compatible. And so long as you're backwards compatible, you can't get rid of the legacy problems. So, you're right back where you started.
The problem is that /etc/hosts is a 30 year old solution, and we knew twenty years ago that it didn't properly solve the problem, and didn't solve it in the right way. So long as you're going to call it /etc/hosts, I don't see how you can change the character set.While that may feasible in protocol commands and such, it's not feasible to mandate that /etc/hosts MUST always use US-ASCII code-point values for characters that may not even exist in the local nationalized charset.
I live in Belgium. Been there, seen that. Exchanging one country-specific character set for another is not a solution. You need a more over-arching solution that is equally applicable everywhere.Really, spend some time with the ECMA derivative sets and you'll see what I mean--there are characters in some of them that aren't in the others, or they are misplaced, or they are defined as alternates, and so forth.
A standalone machine is worthless. In fact, the definition of a truly secure machine is one that is completely isolated from every other machine on the planet. And if that machine is going to be connected to others, you have to talk about representational issues, which means the DNS.I'm glad you fixed your problem, but really, this isn't about DNS, it is about universal representation of hostnames despite the media that is used to convey those names.
Like it or not, when you talk about hostnames, you must also talk about DNS.
Now, can we please take this discussion to a more appropriate place?
Brad Knowles, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.