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

Petr Špaček <> Thu, 25 January 2018 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9812126CBF for <>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 02:48:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.009
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.009 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_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 HvEIZ_ri_kyF for <>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 02:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D5312D967 for <>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 02:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:3c9e:3cff:fec7:f198] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:3c9e:3cff:fec7:f198]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6855365239 for <>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:48:37 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1516877317; bh=FF14IItVdyPxC+Y8vTBFur+R9MOA4wXdE0RBMfCuqis=; h=To:From:Date; b=e++7zpF3Jh1qDZ1C0XswpblxTbOgand3iFdY48uiB8nRj+neWI6RaEAutan7LUzke pmAjla+l3zsDG5yEkwBZGVIrLId84ygcDHAhqnUa1aSnu4WgQORW1DHwmQJ22qNaxk LIB3b9mcBNN4MFirc1+UKC5Hd2kwJMh5+ppkL+mc=
References: <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:48:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
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 10:48:42 -0000

Oh, wait, I just realized one question:

What about reverse zones for "localhost" addresses specified in

It seems to me that it should be handled in similar way, i.e. answered

RFC 6303 says that we should have empty domain for it, but this part is
   The recommendation to serve an empty zone 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA is not an
   attempt to discourage any practice to provide a PTR RR for locally.

PTR is DNS-specific term, so I'm not sure if it is clumsy expression for
"stub should hardcode the answer" or something else.

Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

On 24.1.2018 17:19, Petr Špaček wrote:
> On 22.1.2018 17:18, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This is the opening of the Working Group Last Call for "Let 'localhost' be localhost” (
>> We’ll end it in two weeks, on February 5, 2018.
>> Please focus feedback on: Is this draft ready to go to the IESG for approval as an RFC?
> Yes, I've reviewed version 02 and it seems ready to me.