inet_pton and oddly-formatted addresses

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉]

>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 +0000 (UTC), 
>>>>> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net> said:

emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
>> 
>> The change was taken from BIND9.  The following is from BIND9's
>> CHANGES:
>> 
>> 935.	[bug]		inet_pton failed to reject leading zeros.

> well, maybe they were wrong? How does one get in contact with their
> bugs database these days? Is comp.protocols.dns.bind still a good
> place to discuss these things?

Or bind-users at isc.org.  And yes, I'd ask the question at some
BIND-specific list.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

p.s. 1.002.3.4 is "illegal" according to RFC3986, Section 3.2.2
(although it's specified in the context of a URI), so "what is legal"
is probably a controversial issue.