IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Thu, 25 January 2018 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 2BAB012EAA9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:36:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 qL_vn8Vx9_mI for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [108.5.242.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB2212EAB0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:35:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 3BD0C7A330A; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:35:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:35:50 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180125203549.GD3322@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <9DCE2F63-EE37-4865-B9D6-6B79BBE05593@gmail.com> <062ab681-2226-4f86-0ed8-132c3d1d86ea@nic.cz> <4b9d884e-627b-8019-2b05-b64cc20ffd84@nic.cz> <75AC4EA7-1E38-463F-B3A7-B996F7584306@isc.org> <20180125175416.GA3322@mournblade.imrryr.org> <AB53330A-91CB-4F76-96A5-99743F12A955@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AB53330A-91CB-4F76-96A5-99743F12A955@fugue.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/agfpPm2w4agtEQhyQ4CV1U3MPqE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:36:08 -0000

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:02:27PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:54 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> > I'm fine with recursive resolvers not *forwarding*
> > "localhost.", but forbidding local answers is I think taking it
> > too far and counter-productive.
> 
> Can you talk about why you think this is important?

In summary, existing "localhost" zones are fine and should not come
into a violation of a new RFC.  Secondly, returning the expected
address records at each opportunity to do so, without punting
the problem downstream is the most sensible way to achieve the
stated motivating goals.

> Also, it's worth bearing in mind that regardless of what this
> document says, you can always answer queries to 'localhost.'   Is
> there a reason why that's not enough to satisfy your use case?

If it is going to happen anyway, why forbid it?

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email