Re: [TUHS] [COFF] Pondering the hosts file

On Mar 11, 2021, at 1:08 PM, Ron Natalie &lt;ron(a)ronnatalie.com&gt; wrote: The "name" in this context the host/network/gateway name such as SRI-NIC.ARPA. 3COM.COM <http://3com.com/> would not have been legal back then. Nowhere does it imply that any of the other fields are so restricted. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Bakul Shah" &lt;bakul(a)iitbombay.org <mailto:bakul@iitbombay.org>> To: "Ron Natalie" &lt;ron(a)ronnatalie.com <mailto:ron@ronnatalie.com>> Cc: "The Unix Heritage Society" &lt;tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>>; "Internet History" &lt;internet-history(a)postel.org <mailto:internet-history@postel.org>> Sent: 3/11/2021 4:02:50 PM Subject: Re: [TUHS] [COFF] Pondering the hosts file > On Mar 11, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Ron Natalie &lt;ron(a)ronnatalie.com <mailto:ron@ronnatalie.com>> wrote: >> >> Amusingly one day we got an Imagen ethernet-connected laser printer. Mike Muuss decided the thing should be named BRL-ZAP and since I didn't know what to put down as the machine type, and it did have a 68000 in it, I had Jake put 68000 in the entry in the host table. >> >> The next day I got all kinds of hate mail from other BSD sites who assumed I had intentionally sabotaged the host table. Apparently, the BSD systems used a YACC grammar to parse the NIC table into the Berkeley one. The only problem is they got the grammar wrong and assumed the CPU type always began with a letter. There parse blew up on my "ZAP" host and they assumed that was the desired effect. > > This is understandable as > a) All the "official machine names" in various assigned numbers RFCs start with a letter. > b) the BNF syntax for the "host table specification" entries in RFC 952 or 810 are not precise enough. > <cputype> ::= PDP-11/70 | DEC-1080 | C/30 | CDC-6400...etc. > > NOTE: See "Assigned Numbers" for specific options and acronyms > for machine types, operating systems, and protocol/services. > for machine types, operating systems, and protocol/services. > c) 68000 was not an official name! > :-) :-) :-) > >> I countered back that using a YACC grammar for this was rediculous. There was already a real popular file on UNIX that had a bunch of fields separated by colons and commas (/etc/passwd anybody) that it was never necessary to use YACC to parse. > > Can't argue with that! Though that doesn't mean a handwritten parser wouldn't have complained about 68000.