Re: length restrictions on IDN label
Soobok Lee <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[email protected] wrote: > > Repeat after me: "HOSTNAME != DOMAIN NAME". > Everyone knows that here. :-) Applications , in general, deal with hostnames (smtp?), not abstact domain names (nslookup,dig?). It has been clear that i am saying in the context of appliations's hostname label buffer space problems. > > Hostnames are a subset of domain names (ignoring hostnames > that are larger that 253 and hence not supported by the > DNS). If you are only dealing with hostnames then you > should be rejecting domain names that are not legal hostnames. > Yes. > Anything reading unsanitized domainnames has to expect a > strings bigger than 255 when converted to RFC 1034 presentation > format. > You repeated this twice. And i had agreed. > > Some implementations of gethostbyaddr() do this sanitization > for you. This was also one of the reasons IDNs are converted > to and from ACSII. ToUnicode should be perform outside of > gethostbyaddr(). Moving it inside of gethostbyaddr() is a API > change. > True. Soobok Lee > > Mark > > > >>asm/param.h:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 /* max length of hostname */ >>imap/mail.h:#define NETMAXHOST 65 >>imap/mail.h: char host[NETMAXHOST]; /* host name (may be canonicalized) */ >>imap/mail.h: char orighost[NETMAXHOST]; /* host name before >>canonicalization */ >>lwres/netdb.h:#undef NI_MAXHOST >>lwres/netdb.h:#define NI_MAXHOST 1025 >>mozilla/plresolv.h:#define PL_RESOLVE_MAXHOSTENTBUF 1024 >>protocols/timed.h: char tsp_name[MAXHOSTNAMELEN]; >>rpcsvc/rusers.h:#define RUSERS_MAXHOSTLEN 257 >>rpcsvc/rusers.x:const RUSERS_MAXHOSTLEN = 257; >>rpcsvc/rusers.x: string ut_host<RUSERS_MAXHOSTLEN>; /* host user logged >>on from */ >>rpc/types.h:#ifndef MAXHOSTNAMELEN >>rpc/types.h:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 >>w3c-libwww/wwwsys.h:#ifndef MAXHOSTNAMELEN >>w3c-libwww/wwwsys.h:#define MAXHOSTNAMELEN 64 /* Any better ideas? */ >>X11/Xos_r.h: char h_name[MAXHOSTNAMELEN]; >> >> >> >> >>> As I said what you are talking about is NOT new. These >>> issues have existed for years. >>> >>> >>> >>yes, for presentation formats, it is not new. But for protocol elements, >>it is new. isn't it ? >> >>Soobok Lee >> >> >> >> >> >-- >Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] > >