Hostname FUD

From: Scott D. Yelich <scott_at_scottyelich.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:03:15 -0600 (MDT)

Hello...

This is probably going to sound like a strange question -- but please
consider it as sincere:

I am looking to try to find out what the official position is for
hostnames under Tru64 (v5.1).

The question/issue is simple: Is there any difference between a
hostname and a fqdn?

If there is no difference and they are, in fact, the same, then why does
the hostname command allow for a hostname without a valid domain? If
there is no difference, why is there apparently absolutely no official
documenent from Compaq that mandates that hostname must be the fqdn and
"published" documents are inconsistent (even with themselves?).
Alternatively, if there is a difference, must the hostname be the fqdn
-- and if so, why isn't there an official document from Compaq that
states this?

What I'm trying to do here is get to the bottom of FUD. I'm really not
interested in convention/canonical arguments, I know and understand
what's involved -- I simply want to be shown proof that there is a
statement one way or another that is supported by Compaq. Again,
man pages, RFCs/FYIs are convention -- if a hostname is a name
without a domain, will this break some (broken) part of Tru64?

Thank you.

Scott
Received on Wed Apr 18 2001 - 23:15:36 NZST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed Nov 08 2023 - 11:53:42 NZDT