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

Mike West <> Wed, 02 August 2017 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF29131C9D for <>; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 01:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 vPBFSVDnnvgZ for <>; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 01:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 954FE131D36 for <>; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 01:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u133so15435833vke.3 for <>; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 01:55:11 -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=6tqh/NbISgOemPhFhsW0InDlufZ8fO7EpDEkS9CyTeI=; b=rN4zLB1AS39/M+ijCEnQr+fRcce1vtvrVvnJIEaj+sWdNiqWnz7OGx2D7XOAjbb2Jt t/M1rl9XHrNON+O2ymA2MzBiLTYeEJtTFGk7mVuXqczLUoWR0HJSmS6qf3xvMBaOlFRL Gz8AqckzOJ0/ktKPSrNrzHhiPZw0OCbwsRpwEcvBv2RQD2xsZ+mRK2mRsS0QYGFN4R3t YLKHV9Hjl/BmvDuAKaU1U0eL6Zx3M8IoQm8S/HvItOn6zsD4FQ3mVsC/IfMx2sjmh9bE 1CcdjGd6z8+7DUIbn2ubGGY8jVOaAjwlknhDNWv8LGPMwfkUhY3gITUFCE2YJizxSL2d iZtA==
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=6tqh/NbISgOemPhFhsW0InDlufZ8fO7EpDEkS9CyTeI=; b=odf7sls0PbRuKaYl+JvMnMfP/EeV77dL4J1ZERTipzF+Y4RcFcWilUjhx6SW9ovYjg JuL9ylcl5oHITKynLCFRNKIyjRppduKKD52OipMwhcCDCz7DEXxO7Hzz4Y2G1uUB3Q0+ O8vPhgUxVDNeJgcaeJjkb1Yt6A7QadeoDbiFRF9Mtnsp/6Ph6RpU+j/S+sYihm0Jvr6p QwRHX/IUXaCKoRc3lLImeUY46tmI+ouOzloIWtbq+vnFWnRfR0E15SOxA5x9dcLO0rxa 2hJyJ+h0paVEQU1Oa10tuhX+kIvgE+aUxZMGxWmh/zVRgF41WSdbHOd3U0kN985THZWd QAmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112v1MBtAp8G/P5eydVBmm6feCeMl8g3JkIH64RUNEg70w0yilfv nggECibVz+HEfj6gBWbbW3zQCHwaGZkZ
X-Received: by with SMTP id 79mr15137743vki.93.1501664110522; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 01:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 01:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Mike West <>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 10:54:50 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Mark Andrews <>
Cc: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <>, dnsop WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143dd90e1b7170555c16be0"
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 08:55:14 -0000

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Mark Andrews <> wrote:

> In message <>rg>, Jacob
> Hoffman-Andrews writes:
> > 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.
> The query for foo.localhost doesn't need to hit-the-wire for this
> to be a issue.  Ask your self why RFC 6303, Security section has
>    As DNSSEC is deployed within the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA
>    namespaces, the zones listed above will need to be delegated as
>    insecure delegations, or be within insecure zones.  This will
>    allow DNSSEC validation to succeed for queries in these spaces
>    despite not being answered from the delegated servers.
> or draft-ietf-homenet-dot-10 is doing the same thing for "".
> We didn't add the requirement for insecure delegations for the fun
> of it.  We added it so that the tools that validate will not break
> when those names are being used.
> The only difference between the names in the above documents and
> .localhost is the size of the space where they are valid.  It is
> restricted to the node rather than the site.

Thanks for the feedback, Mark!

What would you like to see in the document in order to address this
concern? A requirement that a `localhost` zone be created and delegated as
an insecure delegation, using some of the language from the draft above
(e.g. "This delegation MUST NOT be signed, MUST NOT include a DS record,
and MUST point to one or more black hole servers, for example '' and ''.")?