On 2009-12-31 14:34:34 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Uh, no. That statement implies nothing of the sort; identification is not > necessarily unique.
I suggest that you look in a dictionary. > I've been participating in standardization of network protocols through > the IETF for more than a decade now, and I've never seen someone use this > definition of FQDN that you're using. I'm quite confident that this is > not the intented interpretation of the standards to which you're > referring, in large part because I was participating in the mailing lists > on which they were written. This is not only me. "hostname -f" uses the same definition. There's also the open problem of what "canonical name" means under Debian / Linux. Some software also assumes the unicity of the FQDN (under the "hostname -f" definition), and even the nodename (e.g. that's procmail when storing mail in a Maildir mailbox). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
