IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 11 September 2017 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 D4A35126DFE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 pmDY1sNsgIYK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (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 2FF15126BFD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 18:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11690 invoked by uid 125); 11 Sep 2017 01:35:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.53) by gal.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2017 01:35:32 -0000
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 01:35:10 -0000
Message-ID: <20170911013510.17202.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20170907045934.C194B848328B@rock.dv.isc.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zLDI82FpmL5gG6KeXojVhI5iz7I>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-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: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 01:35:36 -0000

In article <20170907045934.C194B848328B@rock.dv.isc.org> you write:
>
>In message <CAPt1N1kXeF0zj_VHuv00taZ+39hR6Nw19uZ5rdxJr3aUeS5RvQ@mail.gmail.com>
>, Ted Lemon writes:
>> Mark, I really don't think this is a human rights issue. Is there something
>> that will break for you if the secure denial of existence is left in place?
>
>I shouldn't BE FORCED to hard code special LOCALHOST rules into DNS
>tools.  Lookups should "just work" like they did before the root
>zone was signed.

It seems to me that if someone has enough programming skill to write a
DNSSEC verifier for her cache or stub resolver, she has enough skill
to treat localhost as a special case.

Or she could use unbound which has done this for ages.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email