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

[Mike West <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your feedback, Emily!

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Emily Shepherd <[e-mail]>
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."

-mike