Subject: clarifications question

From: "D. R. Evans" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:07:47 -0700

Clarifications says:

Domain syle realm names MUST look like domain names.

Could someone please tell me exactly what algorithm one is supposed to 
apply in order to determine whether a particular realm name meets this 
requirement? It's not completely obvious (to me, anyway; "look like" is 
pretty vague on its face).

   Doc

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------
Phone:  +1 303 494 0394
Mobile: +1 720 839 8462
Fax:    +1 781 240 0527
-----------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:39:58 -0600

Any realm name which does not contain ":" or "/", is a domain-style 
realm name.

Jeffrey Altman

D. R. Evans wrote:

> requirement? It's not completely obvious (to me, anyway; "look like" 
> is pretty vague on its face).
>
>   Doc
>

---

From: "D. R. Evans" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:53:04 -0700

> Any realm name which does not contain ":" or "/", is a domain-style 

So "looks like" does not imply a limit on length?

   Doc

--

---

From: "D. R. Evans" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:45:24 -0700

> So "looks like" does not imply a limit on length?

So, not hearing anything, guess I have to be a bit more obvious...

According to everything I have read so far, all of the following are 
supposed to be considered legal realm names. Do you really intend this?

1. "" (the empty string)

2. "..............."

3. "This is a string" repeated a large number of times (i.e., so that 
the name is extremely long)

4. "1"

5. "@&^!("

I trust that I have made my point, i.e., that the contents of the function:

const bool is_this_a_valid_domain_type_realm_name(const string& 
putative_realm_name);

are non-obvious. Certainly, after a reasonably thorough reading, I am 
not able to write the body of that function with any confidence that 
some other person would come up with a function that agrees with mine in 
all cases.

FWIW, I don't think that any of the examples are valid domain names. But 
they appear to meet the criteria regarding contents that are listed in 
clarifications (and have been reiterated here).

Doc

--

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:54:18 -0500

It does not bother me if all the realm names you propose as valid end
up being considered valid realm names by some or all implementations.

If they are valid realm names at all, I believe they are considered
domain realm names.