Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!ccncsu!grieg.CS.ColoState.Edu!bentson
From: bentson@grieg.CS.ColoState.Edu (Randolph Bentson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Gripe about nodename restrictions
Keywords: domain name limits, nodename
Message-ID: <2425@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Date: 17 Aug 89 01:59:00 GMT
Sender: news@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU
Reply-To: bentson@grieg.CS.ColoState.Edu (Randolph Bentson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Department, Colorado State University
Lines: 23

I've a copy of RFC 1034 (Domain Concepts and Facilities) and have
checked therein before starting this mild flame...

As you may notice from my address, we have a three part domain
name following the node name. It seems to work well here and
we see no reason to change.  However, HP seems to think that
one should only have a two level domain name, e.g. HP.COM.  When
I issue the command "nodename anon.cs.colostate.edu", I get a
message "nodename: invalid node name syntax".

Back to RFC1034... check section 3.1 last paragraph and the example in
3.5 for mention of a three part domain and size limits. Also note
RFC1035 sections 2.3.4 and 3.1 for more on size limits.

I suspect that a really aggresive competitor could disqualify HP as a
bidder for failing to meet this spec.  Has this happened?  (Remember
DEC getting bumped from the DOD procurement a year or so ago, based on
their failure to provide the "standard" Unix?)

Yet more flaming is based on the hostname length restrictions.
While this isn't as well founded as the other part, it's still
irritating to come upon limits (of eight characters), seemingly
based on tradition.