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

"Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
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 201331341F6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 nCnOAYkxKMrY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EDDB1341F5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mx2.open-xchange.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C9F0B6A3DF; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580766A336; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=mx2.open-xchange.com) by localhost with ESMTP (eXpurgate 4.1.8) (envelope-from <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>) id 59b8ea41-034f-7f000001272a-7f0000018013-1 for <multiple-recipients>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:17 +0200
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 942F86A267; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886FF3C10C0; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from open-xchange.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap.open-xchange.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYZtoYOAKNSu; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.20] (095-096-086-198.static.chello.nl [95.96.86.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BEEA3C01CC; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:20:45 +0200
Message-ID: <153C19CC-3120-466A-A158-A9833A2D17A1@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170913021529.2540.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20170913021529.2540.qmail@ary.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.7r5412)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-purgate-ID: 151428::1505290818-0000034F-ED23E119/0/0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-size: 1271
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate: clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/R4WjCBazGpVBFDx5cv0KRWs_Gs8>
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:20:24 -0000

Hello John,

On 13 Sep 2017, at 4:15, John Levine wrote:

> In article <63DA2E77-8507-4F25-8684-14EABF9A530E@powerdns.com> you 
> write:
>> Since we are doing a draft/RFC on what localhost is and is not, I
>> suggest we put some text in there banning (MUST NOT) the practice of
>> having localhost entries (at least those pointing to 127.0.0.1/::1?) 
>> in
>> auth zones. If there is agreement on this I am happy to contribute 
>> text.
>> This may mean having to say we are updating RFC 1912.
>
> Believe it or not, there are real non-loopback localhost domain names,
> like localhost.reddit.com.

That’s why I had (at least ..) in there. Non-loopback localhost names 
are not a problem, unless, perhaps via search lists, they confuse 
browsers into wrong trust levels.

> I agree that localhost.<foo> pointing to loopback is generally asking
> for trouble, but I am not at this point sufficiently confident that it
> is never ever a good idea to say MUST NOT rather than SHOULD NOT.  I
> can for example imagine ways that might make some kinds of debugging
> easier.

I would settle for SHOULD NOT. Can you elaborate on the debugging?

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/