Re: netdb: Define NI_MAXHOST and NI_MAXSERV.

[Collin Funk]

Hi Bruno,

Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> writes:

>> Does anyone know why
>> RFC 2553 has the larger buffer size? I thought per RFC 1034 domain names
>> were limited to 253 bytes, with the trailing dot removed and empty root
>> label removed [3].
>
> I think [1] explains it:
>   "The first value is actually defined as the constant MAXDNAME in recent
>    versions of BIND's <arpa/nameser.h> header (older versions of BIND
>    define this constant to be 256)"

Yeah, I saw this. I tried to look through the BIND9 repository for more
information but had no luck. Not sure if older versions are so I can't
check.

>> +/* Maximumn length of a fully-qualified domain name.  */
>
> Typo: s/mumn/mum/

Oops.

> or even outright to
>
> /* Use the value defined by the RFCs, regardless of platform.  */
> #undef NI_MAXHOST
> #define NI_MAXHOST 1025

I've pushed the attached patch doing this + fixing those typos.

Collin

0001-netdb-Simplify-NI_MAXHOST-and-NI_MAXSERV-definitions.patch
Description: Text Data