IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 092FD13292A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 jcO7Uu2MPUcc for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (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 EBE61126C19 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27447 invoked by uid 125); 13 Sep 2017 02:15:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.53) by gal.iecc.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2017 02:15:51 -0000
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 02:15:29 -0000
Message-ID: <20170913021529.2540.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com
In-Reply-To: <63DA2E77-8507-4F25-8684-14EABF9A530E@powerdns.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/RWjExwIIn07u-PPl8DqgYyZDyoU>
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 02:15:55 -0000

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.

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.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email