IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> Wed, 09 August 2017 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <edmonds@mycre.ws>
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 1DE99132424 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 A9STWoEnVt-N for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mycre.ws (mycre.ws [45.33.102.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5209132423 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by chase.mycre.ws (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EAF9812C1833; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:45:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:45:45 -0400
From: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>, william manning <chinese.apricot@gmail.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Message-ID: <20170809164545.we3lw43s6aswdg6f@mycre.ws>
References: <CAKXHy=ctB=LZkX9j=8-Jy0NkTAs2tAesa4gmFhfp94O5=9U4TA@mail.gmail.com> <1dbb47a4-c6e2-97d2-a1d7-ce6c65a4042a@eff.org> <CACfw2hiX7U74n9+defcYiD7jLKZeLhtLM6WP5YM_WuAoA8ecYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRg6k7=b7berKr9J+9aL8PTS81nJ_yXQO8QTYqgiqXSbg@mail.gmail.com> <6B25B24C-4C80-4A04-BF27-2306F4A77EF6@fugue.com> <CAL02cgQ2z9Fze-Q2QWQ=+PHJEO_S3bTaq1fPJ6XSEwFUQ=ftvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKXHy=eV0OBW+S308rdiHZ523foOgxYNB3i07RkeFJiTjMYQEQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9568E51-3C48-4BA3-9797-3F7756E857C9@fugue.com> <20170802180221.n7ezh5yzr5cuxklz@mycre.ws> <820AEB88-C38C-4547-8F42-3C7C7E3D7ACC@apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <820AEB88-C38C-4547-8F42-3C7C7E3D7ACC@apple.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hl6szR5CQmBkyDlaNCI7TQdkRuo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Status of "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, 09 Aug 2017 16:45:48 -0000

Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> [*] If you think it’s stupid to suggest a host might not treat “127.0.0.1” as meaning loopback, why is that any more stupid than suggesting that a host might not treat “localhost” as meaning loopback? Both are just as arbitrary.

As far as I can tell, "let 127.0.0.1 be loopback" is more stupid because
RFC 1122 states that addresses of the form 127.0.0.0/8 MUST be used for
loopback traffic, while the considerations for "let localhost be
loopback" in RFC 6761 §6.3 use non-mandatory language.

-- 
Robert Edmonds

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email