> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I don't know what's "unclear" or "silent" about the following
> > from RFC 1035.
> >
> > Although labels can contain any 8 bit values in octets that make up
> > a label, it is strongly recommended that labels follow the preferred
> > syntax described elsewhere in this memo, which is compatible with
> > existing host naming conventions. Name servers and resolvers must
> > compare labels in a case-insensitive manner (i.e., A=a), assuming
> > ASCII with zero parity. Non-alphabetic codes must match exactly.
>
> How do I "compare labels assuming ASCII with zero parity" when the input
> strings are not ASCII or don't have zero parity? If I can really assume
> zero parity, then I can ignore the 8th bit completely and compare only
> the bottom 7 bits. On the other hand, "match exactly" suggests that I
> should require the 8th bit to match too. But even then, among the codes
> 128..255, which are non-alphabetic? I don't know, but I'm required to
> do a case-insensitive comparison, so I'm screwed.
>
> Is that unclear enough for you? :)
>
> AMC
The alphabetic characters in this context are 0x41-0x5a and 0x61-0x7a
(zero parity ASCII A-Z, a-z). All others are compared exactly.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.