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

Joe Abley <> Fri, 02 February 2018 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D131270AC for <>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:46:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 3r8zWeDPviFj for <>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:46:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52944127010 for <>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:46:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v139so12049000ywg.4 for <>; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:46:05 -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=J7Lq6CPNS31DJg1NnXoAX8T7hh8ymNxDzf84q+dhOw4=; b=pbrpRn6Fn9llYnquH5mn191Ad0BkxACZb5Nq/qOFzAWj5T2YHhIYellK5FmiVR2U0j WP7MrnFhR4PRvvOF1cZDke4tTap4T+HplkAOaZe9JpqDZX1FQo1+i53eZ0b7cff0oLbu mRfwgzV3FrsmauX+pXXmrB/p5too/Ow6sNT6U=
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=J7Lq6CPNS31DJg1NnXoAX8T7hh8ymNxDzf84q+dhOw4=; b=sqcHlZaHkl+Sx4WETxIV0Q7BNkgINWpjXRy8plaE11OCEapcm2gAWwJp1lUSMSqguT FQZ8BlQP6MzU+aTDrSZn4eBOZ8MfwfT3rgejpdZ1Ppx3IxDy66Yb/aTlP0PimHEtEH/f CoavzD14T0Yxksv/Nq0HOhRpoog5+KfFqAMTlV2T3JWfRfXES4JkWpxEe6PD0vekHt4B FCdgEDgAg+GCaw3J27x9HSn1CoBYGZcFRH9NufK4LxHZrgjEJcwJ+Njwq+Pr6Szl2nH5 EyqghSljqX5A11jxPVAAeK/Najp6ktM/Y9UzXrkE3gvru9kBpPZl88y/EkA7SbIoqxgQ Vf0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfJq8QArY3dNm/PgCBSXP3fFe7hZCNLqVvxTySYXn8Pf8FnhWMA +isR7ZzqAAXjR3q3QmV1Mi3PVuhiIys=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224nd5MWQf3vubRITMiGw3xB9HL2G2ykZrxPivrjWPydhPsDuigZjHvqs/UfEW3KXG9HIVRmTw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u40mr27013778ybi.393.1517535964052; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f2c0:101:3:4807:15a5:8535:186? ([2607:f2c0:101:3:4807:15a5:8535:186]) by with ESMTPSA id a69sm412919ywh.64.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:46:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-06FACBE3-4A59-4AB3-819D-834D1315D05D
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Abley <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15D60)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:46:01 -0500
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 01:46:07 -0000

> On Feb 1, 2018, at 20:27, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 3:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan <> wrote:
>> I think that this is an example of attempting to
>> do so: to make a name that already appears today in the DNS
>> (localhost) go away.
> Okay, but this simply isn't true.   I think you actually responded to the dig traces I sent earlier.   The root servers securely deny the existence of localhost.  Existing practice is that localhost does not appear in the DNS.   The fact that the RFCs currently differ from existing practice is a problem that the current document is trying to solve.

Entertaining though it is to watch everybody talk across each other, I'm running short on popcorn.

Can we take a brief pause to acknowledge that "the DNS" as a phrase is highly ambiguous and think about whether we mean the protocol, any particular implementation, any particular installation or the namespace (and if so, which one, since there are many, even if our context is a single Root Server System serving a single Root Zone, note capitals, which I think it should be).