Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

[Tony Finch <[e-mail]>]

Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Specifically, we have multiple naming systems already, and I'd argue
> that localhost actually isn't in the DNS naming system.  There is no
> authoritative source for it.  In fact, DNSSEC proves this.
>
> Instead, localhost is a operating system convention, a /etc/hosts name,
> an NIS name, or one of the other things that is able to resolve that
> name.  But the DNS is not where that resolution comes from.

I think this makes sense, but it isn't the whole story. From my brief look
at a small amount of traffic, localhost queries are basically all handled
inside the stub, so it is de facto as you describe. But it has long been
the case that DNS servers are also supposed to handle localhost, e.g.

RFC 1537 section 10
RFC 1912 section 4.1
RFC 2606 section 2
RFC 6761 section 6.3

However, implementations differ - BIND requires explicit configuration,
Unbound handles localhost by default.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[e-mail]>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
South Utsire, Forties, Cromarty, Forth: Westerly 5 or 6, becoming variable 3
or 4, then northerly or northeasterly 5 or 6, occasionally 7 in Forties.
Moderate occasionally rough in Forties. Rain. Good occasionally poor.