Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Joe Abley <> Thu, 25 January 2018 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBA712E042 for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a20l0PJBHjsT for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D752B12E047 for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b18so2436122ybn.2 for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0xfvFctaifb4TPc3k/l1LNMRgZj1ODcvEvydkuxN/S4=; b=NhW/0vtwYks+unZ68GmHSO50j3Evt/PzKOCZZeEiAdMxaruzsZwS5fvnhbiyT7GCs+ ucnvNJJfGUaKlostQOMzvlQCWQvjTuhkBefXYFE8Hstnz0OhqRw54x79o7OrtfUYILov /zHfwNWOHoeX4cLRauOnG3G81SwRPLCnEKM5Q=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0xfvFctaifb4TPc3k/l1LNMRgZj1ODcvEvydkuxN/S4=; b=RBB+E423DoO7d1v8wewOwnIYZa6DdMSPxSDsQSmxqRrjC8pYcctmMqdA1xr4qaDBeL +QmeP1OS7cK/Vn9FebpRjMoGKZXNpe95Nkhk5RyivqinZ42AEvQcw3PTAaUViVHo2uXm PFET+s4uveBrxdt3F55ORTYZBM0PlAKhQOt1oVLZvQVSIzB3w4CQ9RRtPmJafUOIQt27 1r8DPXtIfFH+fP9aD4iwo6reAjrPDWniYHQ0n6UJcv8zK/vF6Xd5qIpbqkG4ymK3ienj sRSUbxjfI/9pThpEt4rvfxkyITFNCgq5hy1WfY8ud3NmzXVg71PFRakn0/rLYKks6TjB V0xA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytek5RPkkYMqIldAU41k6vFCYVuHcRx7IiWrqLZbyiS/Iam5GFyn RDyVmMPNgKL09/pxHG8NcIW9ddE9lNs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226DU73AoRkgj2tE9mtqmUTV45vsqdZ95pqBD8L79HOx5cu2lZvecsqkqhMLiUZQsif6xiiKIg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w84mr7244055ybw.13.1516848727750; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f2c0:101:3:5117:9de:4983:d963? ([2607:f2c0:101:3:5117:9de:4983:d963]) by with ESMTPSA id r69sm736682ywh.100.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Abley <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15D60)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:52:05 -0500
Cc: Mark Andrews <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Paul Vixie <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 02:52:11 -0000

Hey Paul,

(with the usual apologies for the MIME-crime that follows)

> On Jan 24, 2018, at 20:50, Paul Vixie <> wrote:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> On 25 Jan 2018, at 8:38 am, Paul Vixie<>  wrote:
>>> viktor, i don't disagree with your goals, but i have a proposal as to method.
>>> no resolver should be sending single-label names in DNS requests, period.
>> I would qualify that as gethostbyaddr / getaddrinfo etc. should not be ….
>> Resolvers do more than lookup host names.

I was about to point out that in a QNAME-minimised future, every legitimate query received by a TLD nameserver has a single-label QNAME. But now I don't have to.

> as others pointed out off-thread, you are right, and that's what i meant.

If I agree that this is a worthy goal (and I think I do, although I haven't thought it through in context very well) the obvious question is whether it's possible to get there and, if so, how.

There is an awful lot of entrenched practice (including every corporate environment I've ever worked) where a search list and single-label hostnames are either a convenient short-cut or an absolute requirement, like it or not. The collateral damage that would result from slamming that door in enough operating environments to make a difference is surely greater than customers, managers and shareholders would tolerate.

What am I missing?