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

"John Levine" <> Tue, 12 September 2017 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C89E132F5D for <>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iIYDFoEQ-J-E for <>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52F3212421A for <>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 49007 invoked by uid 125); 12 Sep 2017 22:21:04 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 12 Sep 2017 22:21:04 -0000
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:17:38 -0000
Message-ID: <20170912221738.1645.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-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: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:21:06 -0000

In article <> you write:
>I think that this boils down to: It is an error to send a query for
>localhost (or anything under localhost) to the DNS. The main reason
>for this (at least from my reading of the thread) is a security
>argument -- you want to be completely sure that 'localhost' will
>always be / ::1 / some local equivalent, and this is not a
>guarantee we can expect from the DNS[0]. Because of this it is better
>the have queries that accidentally *do* leak into the DNS get a
>failure (NXDOMAIN) - this avoids having (security important) cases
>work fine until there is an attacker.
>Is this a reasonable summary? Perhaps once we agree if *is* the
>behavior we want we'll have an easier time deciding exactly how...

Sounds right to me.

With respect to Tim's suggestion that we invent
localhost-we-really-mean-it-this-time, the existing localhost isn't
going away, and it is my impression that more often than not software
already does what this draft suggests.