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

神明達哉 <> Fri, 26 January 2018 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C122412706D for <>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jj0tbNSE8cin for <>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 534B5126B6E for <>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v31so1405997wrc.11 for <>; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Kpm7VPyi2Xsm17/8Mx94DDPly1xNomQMeop6NbpfecQ=; b=vREI1yJqk3nwgdfp4zC1rqv2bX62cAdSMixKsUHg8Ho0aGAuLFZwxxJ2xM+E7pRM8w rbNVOLDrnfaPxW34iycj3EsZC62ZcpaolQH0+W4+aXZ9VlLSEw3gkREIHfS7sT7Nv4EV wqnLpJ5pYV/wllhFjn2e9wDeHj6IOGTvjRckM7cQIcQlAZLcwbLjVfiw9S80MN5whimz q0tPdHOmvHpntlbwcRgu+KAryL9SyY1pwUZc4ZUfzHKde2oWO+WcOdoI55loy/Clf+OO nV6gqnek8yuOtMmCTGIDQUSQ9nl8YOb7aYIZdr6nkNXhYYIaCTFEtfm/yCZknUyxe0E6 SEgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kpm7VPyi2Xsm17/8Mx94DDPly1xNomQMeop6NbpfecQ=; b=QjJ0RkFQiaqc6jXACXrwV4tm70vlDDKye3xVdRM+3W+9syMI8a8B1zUDXqJPDZV7CP H01CHvNx6aKP8oAo/cUPCCHoC/BNL3OFagmfTp8QbSupvaGClz2AByFfcPFGK48vzUtu h+rgpG+RUujuBYASQlwijUPbnZIRuuAvmw+tR/Byn6ES/nYilwuMO7zT/3ZIKHYozqh5 3EO1o9JrUrjJ0u2rxk0Xok8l0z4bkbOYDlUmN/k5pu4vL4e1EOuv9Uf5MCyDQ5C5zlf+ ircAi45vEDBvyuG4c7ISj7Bvz0tw/VtNZdNxBVgs2AdZ0zzE8l8oCqjPZ1tijTpmND6Q C53Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdhJO7nPMerrU8l9Ox89wPEBHZSwED8FNrTbxvZMRcSxOUBUiOw tBGzmnBsvoDZw33yyq6tjlp1wWiO/xb/Ao8bbZqTKUfz
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225HaUtnhkTWQUU2ukhpw2w9g7O91i/w9DvN41E/w9rIHCbQPrd0XYdUby8q1RXfsBghIXAuOyH2G9NnW1VygQc=
X-Received: by with SMTP id t3mr11769437wrb.274.1516994845651; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: 神明達哉 <>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:27:25 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: DwXnCQCx-T9s84xJMXFQu7854oU
Message-ID: <>
To: Tony Finch <>
Cc: dnsop <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02
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 19:27:29 -0000

At Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:22:36 +0000,
Tony Finch <> wrote:

> > Could you be more specific about it?  It may be a minority
> > implementation, but I thought traditional stub resolver
> > implementations in BSD variants systems (getaddrinfo/gethostbyname
> > with the backend of libresolv) didn't hardocde special logic for
> > "localhost." yet.  It's true that such implementations refer to
> > /etc/hosts and it has system-installed mapping between 'localhost.'
> > and ::1 by default.  Do you mean (in addition to hardcoding the
> > special logic) this kind of combination of generic implementation with
> > default system configuration?
> Exactly, yes.

Okay, then would such a system be deemed to conform to this part of
the draft?

   3.  Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST recognize localhost names
       as special, and MUST always return an appropriate IP loopback
       address for IPv4 and IPv6 address queries and negative responses
       for all other query types.

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

JINMEI, Tatuya