0.30000000000000004

Re:0.30000000000000004 by goosehonk on Monday December 02, 2019 @03:43PM (#21686665)

When did RFC1035 get thrown under the bus? According to it, with respect to domain name labels, "They must start with a letter" (2.3.1).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:0.30000000000000004 by jlv2 on Monday December 02, 2019 @03:54PM (#21686799)

Long, long ago. 3com.com wanted to exist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:0.30000000000000004 by yellowapple on Monday December 02, 2019 @07:52PM (#21688834)

Amazingly, 3.com apparently didn't want to exist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:0.30000000000000004 by jwilk on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @02:50PM (#21695970)

All-digit host names have been allowed since 1989.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#page-13

One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal syntax.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:0.30000000000000004 by goosehonk on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @11:11AM (#21703390)

Huh. Thanks! I really missed the memo there. I wonder why 1035 doesn’t mention that it is updated-by 1123.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:0.30000000000000004 by knome on Monday December 02, 2019 @03:51PM (#21686760)

The same document defines `in-addr.arpa` domains that have numeric labels.

The mandate of a starting letter was for backwards compatibility, and mentions it in light of keeping names compatible with email servers and HOSTS files it was replacing.

Taking a numeric label risks incompatibility with antiquated systems, but I doubt it will effect any modern browser.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:0.30000000000000004 by jdnenej on Monday December 02, 2019 @03:45PM (#21686688)

Ages ago I guess. 1password doesn't start with a letter either.

[ Parent | on HN ]