Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

william manning <> Wed, 02 August 2017 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C499131EB8 for <>; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 03:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vwDNNFgHKhIz for <>; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 03:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29706131EAD for <>; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 03:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g13so18642418ioj.5 for <>; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 03:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rwGtgo/syosi6EC7k4cxBmaLfmEEljud9Wo42qj6Xw0=; b=hjI+sOFWVaBnSTyVSGZi5lwfiPFeMmHca9CPe1qeeLYGDfT6HHH93PRviTDJMMXlyP b8n3r0lB1GIVODXggE+nhIcJMcOYQgJIYZW0LNueztvHHyJNph3acAf0sV4/M9PkdLu1 uetwNbrSi/PaDgTJTQbgfjLpgPLFrPzqZA7GKT2ou36cg9WZg960r2KnroQFzopt6X7B OH2LYZV7GJQUZkOL6q4lvfusxWHemPePlxI+kvr9y53bbhWYSByfmbzWY88ChFE93u3L VJxQO5D2/JJ3Him/GILm0rBT0MjFex3lPgbjcbzOudvcPT2BNq0dsXo5MxTOmtVHUmfx x1oQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rwGtgo/syosi6EC7k4cxBmaLfmEEljud9Wo42qj6Xw0=; b=FCumUCs20juGuvMGvyqSEKVoxNPA1puJIZogqo+V7/o9upt1sArLkrf0T1H8xE6/e/ JbFTuHIxjvPtNE5d4ZmT4c99sKnPAFQh+VFeWZdE8/uaTFVJr/26h3lDgSvk8Hv0Zf6b CvJklXSfjoi2V3CDK7oCAKxlPBQi89PN43oRU/VeUGnuglUv7F06tP+kw6oOmKT8HH77 1S79dJTraeqND0LgSz4gpjCCfplSPB8w5B9RDmUwgId6DnuyBEXBfS5wiXpuAPSmHvxz 8x+mYdW6vUjAlSXFXZidEXrua9MuXIth9yI3pXwwM9Pb7wpmZzTFMpR1Bo4/dd4Ru5Rj +12A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111mZ5a3qqneEdMy04SCg1EOcPgiEGaGL9DSVfg03sivfBqFVBII wuDYnns8D+o1rl4zLOTF09Bob48CAA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i84mr25294575iod.293.1501670388533; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 03:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 03:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: william manning <>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 03:39:47 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f0b82140e2c0555c2e284"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:39:51 -0000

localhost is just a string, like www or mail or supralingua.  A DNS
operator may
chose to map any given string to any given IP address.  restricting  ::1
 so that it never leaves
the host is pretty straight forward.  if I map localhost to
3ffe::53:dead:beef and NOT ::1 in my
systems, why should you care?
if you are concerned that completion logic is broken in resolvers and the
string "localhost" is not
appended to the domain, then you really are asking for the root servers to
backstop the query with
an entry for localhost.  and for the first 20 years of the DNS, there was
an entry for localhost. in
many of the root servers.  it was phased out for several reasons, two key
ones were DNSSEC and
the fact that most resolvers had corrected their broken completion logic.
There is no good reason to bring it back for special processing.  It's just
a string.


On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <> wrote:

> On 08/01/2017 03:48 AM, Mike West wrote:
> > The only open issue I know of is some discussion in the thread at
> > that I
> > need help synthesizing into the draft. I don't know enough about the
> > subtleties here to have a strong opinion, and I'm happy to accept the
> > consensus of the group.
> Reading back through this thread, it seems like the concerns were about
> how to represent the  ".localhost" TLD in the root zone, or how to use
> DNSSEC to express that the root zone will not speak for ".localhost".
> However, I think we don't need either. This draft attempts to codify the
> idea that queries for "localhost" or "foo.localhost" should never leave
> the local system, and so it doesn't matter what the root zone says about
> ".localhost".
> I would even take it a step further: It would be a mistake to add any
> records for ".localhost" to the root zone, because it would mask
> implementation errors. If a local resolver accidentally allows a query
> for "foo.localhost" to hit the wire, it should result in an error.
> IMHO, the document is good as it stands.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list