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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 12 August 2017 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 D640613251B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 sLvQG3p4BQSi for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 76EE81324C2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.65] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v7CIZJpD096425 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:35:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [10.32.60.65]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:36:17 -0700
Message-ID: <4544C6A8-5591-454F-9E94-F3CADD3CDD2D@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <B21C539E-75AF-43F1-B6B0-4BDC25C6D670@fugue.com>
References: <20170812170958.14197.qmail@ary.lan> <B21C539E-75AF-43F1-B6B0-4BDC25C6D670@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rRGSDbMII3T8KG-sBaGhW9zNtoI>
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: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 18:36:18 -0000

On 12 Aug 2017, at 10:14, Ted Lemon wrote:

> El 12 ag 2017, a les 13:09, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> va escriure:
>> Right.  That's why it's long past time that we make it clear that
>> non-broken resolvers at any level will treat localhost as a special
>> case.  As you may have heard, we are not the Network Police, but we 
>> do
>> publish the occasional document telling people what to do if they 
>> want
>> to interoperate with the rest of the Internet.
>
> With respect, John, the issue I raised here isn't interop.  It's 
> security.

It's security through interop. It's causing systems that want to hope 
that "localhost" has a particular meaning that has security implications 
to have a better chance that their hope is fulfilled.

--Paul Hoffman