> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:56:56 -0500
> From: Peter Laws
>
> Leonard Mills wrote:
> > check-names master ignore
> >
> > might well be what you're looking for. You lose name checking against the

current standards :-).
>
> *That's* the question: what are the standards as BIND sees them? The RFCs
> referenced in here and in the docs specify what's "official" (or what was
> official years ago) but that's not necessarily the same as what BIND does:
>
> "The rules for legal hostnames / mail domains are derived from RFC 952 and
> RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123." (from BIND docs)
>
>
> OK, so just what is derived? Did they take the rules verbatim? Or do they
> allow some and not others? SRV records *require* the underbar, but they
> aren't mentioned in any of the RFCs above or any posted here today ...


Well, you're allowed to have an "_" in a DOMAIN name but not in a HOST
name. And RFC 2782 covers SRV RRs as used in DNS...

(RFC 2782 is available http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2782.html and
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2782.txt )

> So the question stands - what do I lose if I choose "check-names slave
> ignore"?
>
>
> --
> Peter Laws / N5UWY
> National Weather Center / Network Operations Center
> University of Oklahoma Information Technology
> plaws@ou.edu
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Feedback? Contact my director, Craig Cochell, craigc@ou.edu. Thank you!
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609
2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1
San Jose, CA 95134

I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely
learn a great deal today.

"A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for
lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the
decision."

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton