On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 09:48:33PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > I am also not eager to see additional bug reports for this case that > will need to be fixed under the precedent that we accepted a patch to > fix it before. If there's a concern that rejecting these hostnames > altogether would break existing users, then we can just do nothing, and > tell users that their syntax is not valid and they need to fix their > hostnames. This rule has been documented since before ISO standardized > C, so it shouldn't be new to anyone deploying systems or DNS. > > So I'm fine with doing nothing, or rejecting these hostnames, but not > allowing more lenient syntax, because it will probably be broken > somewhere and we (or someone else in the ecosystem) will have to deal > with it again down the line. FWIW, I'm fine with doing nothing. But it will still come back further down the line, because it _does_ work most of the way, and has for a long time. -Peff
