Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Tue, 12 September 2017 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4117A13208E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kklpzzD5RxOF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (unknown [168.150.236.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CC801241FC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1B26241F8; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20170911013510.17202.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:21:16 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20170911013510.17202.qmail@ary.lan> (John Levine's message of "11 Sep 2017 01:35:10 -0000")
Message-ID: <yblr2vcxzjn.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7I7JVgoIHaXxsVEoirPcPb7qM3A>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:21:18 -0000

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

> It seems to me that if someone has enough programming skill to write a
> DNSSEC verifier for her cache or stub resolver, she has enough skill
> to treat localhost as a special case.

I've been trying to figure out for a few days now how to insert my
opinion.  It's kinda like the above but not.  Specifically, we have
multiple naming systems already, and I'd argue that localhost actually
isn't in the DNS naming system.  There is no authoritative source for
it.  In fact, DNSSEC proves this.

Instead, localhost is a operating system convention, a /etc/hosts name,
an NIS name, or one of the other things that is able to resolve that
name.  But the DNS is not where that resolution comes from.

Now, how do we ensure that a conflict never happens?  That's a better
discussion and there are a few options ranging from policy to ensure
it's never assigned, to actually registering it, to...
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI