Re: I-D Action: draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-00.txt

Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mkwst@google.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F2C12B30B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 oGNt-k93wSXL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E4AF12B300 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id y6so30660179lff.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sTWPevsi0iPpg+Iyjtm7E1yXvhNRF0dWBfUlFI0ofKs=; b=S/Szd0l1VJogit8xr+1Oa5sr/PrpntgI4qLi8Jlr4Tro25TV1p4hSIcgBR1lbI6KzT 4mfrzvIIGm/0KgPdU+PBhViudHYxRFeCZwSZIT2WWKr2FfnN9Lg/iESxFiSMVc7c2xYX bLx2zu/G0kq5aoOmXJEDEke+GbkF/S20sq0RZ8uOs+6pdTGyHPmOLpoQRskxL5okQ8wZ KJ9ldwl1bB+XuYBJlSv82skHe8Gv3o6GELm5v5xnp298CbI7vjS1XTGhUMLil6kH5/oF mO4tIBTqfLBdeAaIWdyINdYJ1CzDhh/2jWBxNbAzVg7ZaXQ33WXx7FOmOfsHycQN9hAl M3gQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sTWPevsi0iPpg+Iyjtm7E1yXvhNRF0dWBfUlFI0ofKs=; b=S1J3tL9iKJlgKaSPNJqruoHpdirH8ev2DYXRuysWdZtB+PcayH6VHBws/h9kvZEOfA RcorAP9uiZgAf3X6K4FIBeqjwPeHT98f6+7Zya+YNNeaT8sJSgzQ4KI1Fv/O4L8+/a8E LOaojr7FIjulCky+T2AIC8EzvB7nRmlzDFASBwJ3wiBEgUPsZFSxgnZPP30WXwJhcBpL vty5dbynlRceMK/oZTHxnB8YVA3M2dnhQ5sY8T1g1a10zujX3dryaGfQL3p/hbokrNGi /dZN50/wy84l6lFgglhD5WLgrDDA6+iA/sAmrNBV7Svt7Ypqi1G/DRmOdxnq71PdzCsn 39Sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMurJRpTMKAp43dfKsd2Q32flqwmQhjuEnryjmM45zucZAYSvNWkLUv6j/YDFusWu8tbhhMsqNWfKvI2dY/
X-Received: by 10.25.28.19 with SMTP id c19mr10864039lfc.56.1474997977323; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.221.139 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKXHy=fCoQPb4EJ2aS9Lfj6yKM-HotjhO_VsPk2PDeFATxpGdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <147492207250.5121.3453453957391816595.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160926233938.k5nsfgxxhpoqzzbk@emily-tablet> <CAKXHy=fCoQPb4EJ2aS9Lfj6yKM-HotjhO_VsPk2PDeFATxpGdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:39:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=d=eLpGKoW5wzyi9GYOtko4uB62GGRQGsJwLUe0j-iGEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-00.txt
To: Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11401be87c0c05053d80bae2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BEeVayfAlu4x7rpF6ZChtIqsAsY>
Cc: draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:39:42 -0000

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> Thanks for your feedback, Emily!
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
> wrote:
>
>> As this proposal is in the name of consistency, is there an argument we
>> should be strict and explicitly define *which* loopback address DNS servers
>> must return when queried?
>>
>
> I was intentionally vague on that point, as one of the scenarios raised in
> https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-secure-contexts/issues/43 was a
> developer who was pointing `project1.localhost` to 127.0.0.1, and
> `project2.localhost` to 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts (and presumably had a
> server configured accordingly). It seems like that's a reasonable thing to
> support. Any loopback address is fine with me.
>
> Also, as a nit-picky caveat: might there be a special case worth
>> considering when a system is running a caching DNS server locally? In that
>> case, it could theoretically be acceptable for a name resolution API /
>> library to forward on the request.
>>
>> 2.  Item #4 is changed to read as follows:
>>>
>>>     Caching DNS servers MUST recognize localhost names as special,
>>>     and MUST NOT attempt to look up NS records for them, or otherwise
>>>     query authoritative DNS servers in an attempt to resolve
>>>     localhost names.  Instead, caching DNS servers
>>>
>>
>> Are we missing a 'MUST,' on the end of that last line?
>
>
> Yes. We are. Remind me to read drafts before uploading them. :)
>
> I meant this to say something like "MUST generate an immediate negative
> response."
>

Fixed in
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-01.
Thank you!

-mike