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

"Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>
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 B01F712EA59 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:33:48 -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 epRDWfks-rD4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odbmap07.extra.chrysler.com (odbmap07.out.extra.chrysler.com [129.9.107.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 315D41201FA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odbmap09.oddc.chrysler.com (Unknown_Domain [151.171.137.34]) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id EB.2F.29258.EC03A6A5; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:32:30 -0500 (EST)
X-AuditID: 81096b23-13a199800000724a-6f-5a6a30ceec64
Received: from mxph1chrw.fgremc.it (Unknown_Domain [151.171.20.45]) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 91.5F.08474.BD03A6A5; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:32:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mxph4chrw.fgremc.it (151.171.20.48) by mxph1chrw.fgremc.it (151.171.20.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:32:42 -0500
Received: from mxph4chrw.fgremc.it ([fe80::cc0c:cb4f:1b3f:2701]) by mxph4chrw.fgremc.it ([fe80::cc0c:cb4f:1b3f:2701%18]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:32:42 -0500
From: "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>
To: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
Thread-Index: AQHTk5yfXCyi0/ECPUu6D+wM5HlfN6OFUJeA//+tpuA=
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:32:41 +0000
Message-ID: <0ef826154c9a4a2dae1756e43694258a@mxph4chrw.fgremc.it>
References: <9DCE2F63-EE37-4865-B9D6-6B79BBE05593@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcSirZyfr7PKhf=ttMxf=DeMVeJPNPn=R-HS2cH3Z-nPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqcSirZyfr7PKhf=ttMxf=DeMVeJPNPn=R-HS2cH3Z-nPw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [151.171.20.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyfXWnki67YVaUwa/HyhZ331xmsVi0+wCb RdOUaawOzB47Z91l91iy5CeTx96nx9gCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mt58fsla8FauYudD7gbG TokuRg4OCQETiQO3TLoYuTiEBLYzSrTdvMXSxcgJFj++cDY7RGI9o8S7vtOMEM46RokPK9qY IZydjBLPv69kBmlhA2pZeOUumC0ikCGx8tREVpAVzAJSEus3F4KEhQV8JN7P/M4IUeIrsXnN c3YI20piY9McdpByFgFViWMnokHCvAJOEj/O74Na1cwoseNWM1g9p0CgRN++X2BzGAXEJL6f WsMEYjMLiEvcejKfCeIDAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OFsA0kti7dB/WlksTP6xD3MAvoS+yZeIoF wtaWWLbwNTPEEYISJ2c+YQE5QkJgJYfEhPkL2ScwSs1Csm8Wkv5ZSPpnIelfwMiyilE6PyUp N7HAwFwvtaKkKFEvOaOosjgntUgvOT93EyMwghs5s5V3ME6Za3mIUYCDUYmHV+JxZpQQa2JZ cWXuIUYJDmYlEV5B3awoId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4rwL5YFSAumJJanZqakFqUUw WSYOTqkGRu45j02mBtR4/VzQ5mxutZlxgrYa8wy2ef947MNXR9Xde+yRd3e/VEhk4YxpU2Pv Tr2pKr1GhiXh+47UN2vPrm3YohrDMkVgZljHxKYTjCu/Hv32XOXD62iHqh7FWzmqT84e69VM WHV2b9fJnb19Er4Na1keBon1HH1/fmdX5YzLX3a8+vrspK0SS3FGoqEWc1FxIgAKGCtr3AIA AA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrDKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyfbWIru4dg6wog+l3eS3uvrnMYrFo9wE2 i6Yp01gdmD12zrrL7rFkyU8mj71Pj7EFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZbz5/JK14K1cxc6H3A2M nRJdjJwcEgImEscXzmbvYuTiEBJYzyjxru80I4SzjlHiw4o2ZghnJ6PE8+8rmUFa2IBaFl65 C2aLCGRIrDw1kbWLkYODWUBKYv3mQpCwsICPxPuZ3xkhSnwlNq95zg5hW0lsbJrDDlLOIqAq cexENEiYV8BJ4sf5fVCrmhkldtxqBqvnFAiU6Nv3C2wOo4CYxPdTa5hAbGYBcYlbT+YzQXwg ILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf6wQtoHE1qX7WCBsJYmf1yHuYRbQl9gz8RQLhK0tsWzha2aIIwQlTs58 wjKBUXwWkhWzkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaWVYxS+SlJuYkFBpZ6+SkpyXrJGUWVxTmpRXrJ+bmbGMFR 16m4g7FxkeUhRgEORiUe3gkPM6OEWBPLiitzDzFKcjApifIu6M+IEuJLyk+pzEgszogvKs1J LT7EKMHBrCTCK6ibFSXEm5JYWZValA+TkuZgURLnVSlwCBQSSE8sSc1OTS1ILYLJynBwKEnw JqsCNQoWpaanVqRl5pQgpJk4OEGG8wANF5ICGV5ckJhbnJkOkT/FqM3xbe+DNmaOGy9etzEL seTl56VKifOuVAAqFQApzSjNg5v2ilEc6Clh3haQZTzAJAs35xXQCiagFXYVmSArShIRUlIN jNKBkoV/1hi9UE5dPan6DN/u7aE1OWetDvTPXm76LPLaBwuHG8+eXpNd//+mYwinu8CRrTLb koWV/LalHXi0aO2RYN7v4gsU5uzfvH5djifrbqfp8nPTkxmkn4fXPmRrKN/7T6trFmPoGSYD fk4W+ZM7932+qNK0e1qR25KSWYV/Iv5fPM9wO0CJpTgj0VCLuag4EQAeRLzVbwMAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jLE6a3M_XW6JOoj0jT1RL85naJc>
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 19:33:49 -0000

Suggestion to the (first, Section 1) suggestion:

s/go detected/be detected/


							- Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ????
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:24 PM
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

At Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:18:08 -0500,
Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please focus feedback on: Is this draft ready to go to the IESG for 
> approval as an RFC? If not, can you suggest specific changes it needs?

I myself don't have a particular opinion on whether to send it to the IESG, but I don't think it's ready for it based on my understanding of the WG discussion so far.  In particular, I don't think I saw a wg consensus about one major objection to the idea: "I'd like to keep my right of configuring my DNS servers (authoritative or recursive) to return whatever I want to 'localhost' queries".  Again, I personally don't claim this right, but I see the concern.  If my observation is correct and the WG has actually not reached a clear consensus on this, I believe it should first achieve it.  If I miss a reached consensus, I wouldn't oppose to it, but I believe the draft should discuss how/why it justifies dismissing such concerns.

Some specific comments on the 02 version follow.

- (editorial) Section 1:
   This increases the likelihood
   that non-conformant stub resolvers will not go undetected.

  This is a kind of double negation ('not...undetected') and it was
  difficult to me to understand it on a first read.  I'd suggest
  revising it to, e.g:

   This increases the likelihood
   that non-conformant stub resolvers will go detected.

- Section 2

   The domain "localhost.", and any names falling within ".localhost.",
   are known as "localhost names".

  I'm afraid this definition can be a bit ambiguous.  It could read as
  if "a.localhost.example.' is a 'localhost name'.  I'd suggest:

   The domain "localhost.", and any names ending with "localhost.",
   are known as "localhost names".

- Section 3

   1.  Users are free to use localhost names as they would any other
       domain names.

  It's not clear to me what this sentence means.

- Section 3

   7.  DNS Registries/Registrars MUST NOT grant requests to register
       localhost names in the normal way to any person or entity.

  It's a bit awkward to me to use an RFC2119 keyword for what
  registries/registrars should (or should not) do.

- Section 5.1

   In this
   case, the requirement that the application resolve localhost names on
   its own may be safe to ignore, but only if all the requirements under
   point 2 of Section 3 are known to be followed by the resolver that is
   known to be present in the target environment.

  I don't understand this sentence, especially the phrase "if all the
   requirements under point 2 of Section 3 are known to be followed by
   the resolver".  Point 2 of Section 3 talks about application
   behavior (and I interpret "application" is a user of resolver, not
   resolver itself), so what does it mean by "known to be followed by
   the resolver"?

- Section 5.2

   Hosts like "localhost.example.com" and
   "subdomain.localhost.example.com" contain a "localhost" label, but
   are not themselves localhost names, as they do not fall within
   "localhost.".

  I suggest: 'as they do not end with "localhost.".' (see my comment on
  Section 2 above).

- Section 6.1

   Some application software differentiates between the hostname
   "localhost" and the IP address "127.0.0.1".

  You might also want to refer to ::1 here.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop