Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199505301409.KAA00720@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Tue, 30 May 1995 15:52:04 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: getting started
To: hta@dale.uninett.no, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 30 May 1995 15:42:14 +0200 from hta@dale.uninett.no

On Tue, 30 May 1995 15:42:14 +0200 Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no said:

>I could  not agree  more -  that is indeed  why we  chose to  reject the
>writing of "yet another applicability statement" and decided to take the
>bull by the horns and rewrite the base documents.

Good.

>About the hostname  stuff: I think the new docs  should clearly identify
>that hostnames are legal DNS names, and  leave it at that; it might copy
>a few  of the rules  for reference  (like the charset  limitations), but
>should otherwise refer to the DNS documents for the definition.

Fine but they too should be rewritten with all edits applied.

>The  legality of  addresses like  maryland.bitnet is  a problem....let's
>think some more about that when we see where it belongs in the spec.

As I see it,  the RFCs we are talking about  only concern themselves with
syntax. So,  from that  point of view  maryland.bitnet is  clearly valid.
Whether or not this address actually works is another matter.

  Eric