Return-Path: 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 8DFBF127369 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:40:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 Lh4f6bsT9NaZ for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:40:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A454127137 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:40:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 72so1549876iom.10 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:40:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=dRet450nCSnrgmbZ+OSwZfubyp4qpE+TU3c5TuX8UuQ=; b=j1Uhzd2t9mrpmxS1uJrHv3tvakPuk9Dc8ooAME6s6PQ4x4KmZOjoIcna3b/2Z7JX4b hkivHG+xzzVh7FsTViSJQzYGxYdzMVuMHCN3P4QfxspjqaDZZ9QhmdgM44QAauxF5MVB dAhEuJkQ6a3SO15ZDZGExx6e2bo8/NUqVkHrerjCYZSPqCNhJBM2PLH5Za9/2EYer2GY l+3ZDFLIXGFZUkEmhyRHZ4cyYA2/adkRs+cqAXuy49cQOjQqKNDG5H62OcWVsiIg70O2 a14SASbZhF7FaKlCjN5txOtWB5ecrMCBMnp0aAX6BRODQyhuy3JyU2OQJxfR1cco10g2 BF2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=dRet450nCSnrgmbZ+OSwZfubyp4qpE+TU3c5TuX8UuQ=; b=MJoh48DfPtPti2yZKiWi+Qvdinm7vGhG07FkIr44rS28AtmqvnYKIg5Mhs1ON8kh7H I5NvLl42zqMejHebPCi+yd4eu7Ck4PT6R0kfNPG9zdEG3l28lDUx/EijEO/zeT57zCCv LTqv28IE21FwVWbl4ShkD6rh8FCwtLh0ioigsALcb9ByLi7ap6Av8c0S28q+N+IBx/j2 xF/RbDY7yD1HSPfrjCirmf9i4silgoVUY53P7NjjsPiOxepv3uurs/wPZtiL30AC+eGJ jFWzZtrBvAlb3SPOQb7V4fqqwOW9kBNjPhjVMOLdg6wV/67TYZlBYR0A4YtfyaKvHI0I 5VaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcUaTrC73jy4H+kw1+VvXKQKoN9TTb+SgXQt5xfYcdx81zmU5aR 66Gkc3hLnHzX/BEUscWN6oQ/6Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226cVvthIBjwiqPlsaBCc/3jMNhMshpkVJeezxka/gN5thl/qZ1AXD1YZeZCyybl4ItAxjnYaQ== X-Received: by 10.107.137.26 with SMTP id l26mr17949381iod.108.1516995655379; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.19.131.146] ([12.130.117.63]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f16sm851646iob.75.2018.01.26.11.40.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:40:54 -0800 (PST) From: Ted Lemon Message-Id: <37A9F504-A8BE-4F47-AAE9-AF2458206F03@fugue.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CA34A258-C043-4359-B5BB-CC34995697DF" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:40:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: Cc: Tony Finch , dnsop To: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= References: <20180124205620.GZ3322@mournblade.imrryr.org> <77B805CC-E8FE-4B09-A261-C5CB13707EE4@dotat.at> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:40:57 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CA34A258-C043-4359-B5BB-CC34995697DF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Jan 26, 2018, at 2:27 PM, =E7=A5=9E=E6=98=8E=E9=81=94=E5=93=89 = wrote: > It's not clear to me, and either way I believe the draft should be > clearer on these points (see also my latest response to Petr. If the > intent of the draft is to prohibit any user customization, it should > explicitly say so (with, IMO, some more explanation); if the intent is > to allow such customization, I believe we should actually loosen it to > SHOULDs). There was no clear intent at the beginning when this was an individual = submission, but the discussion on the individual submission and on the = call for adoption seemed to show a fairly strong consensus that looking = up localhost using DNS is a significant security vulnerability, so MUST = is the right language. Of course, I was part of that consensus, so I = may be biased! --Apple-Mail=_CA34A258-C043-4359-B5BB-CC34995697DF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = Jan 26, 2018, at 2:27 PM, =E7=A5=9E=E6=98=8E=E9=81=94=E5=93=89 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> = wrote:
It's not clear to = me, and either way I believe the draft should be
clearer on these points (see also my latest = response to Petr.  If the
intent of the draft = is to prohibit any user customization, it should
explicitly say so (with, IMO, some more = explanation); if the intent is
to allow such = customization, I believe we should actually loosen it to
SHOULDs).

There was no clear intent at the beginning = when this was an individual submission, but the discussion on the = individual submission and on the call for adoption seemed to show a = fairly strong consensus that looking up localhost using DNS is a = significant security vulnerability, so MUST is the right language. =   Of course, I was part of that consensus, so I may be = biased!

= --Apple-Mail=_CA34A258-C043-4359-B5BB-CC34995697DF--