Ted, Isn't this more-or-less the same as .ONION then? We're searching for a label-based switch to disable DNS?
An alternate interpretation would be that this is something that could be added to RFC 6303, "Locally Served DNS Zones". While that RFC is only about reverse DNS now, one could step back a bit and squint and think that maybe localhost is similar. :) Cheers, -- Shane At 2016-11-17 13:19:28 +0900 Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > The reason I ask is that the document proposes /not/ to use DNS to resolve > it, which I think is correct. So it really doesn't sound like a dnsop > issue. It's sounds like an intarea issue, or else keep it in sunset4. > > Additionally, the root zone will respond to queries for localhost with a > secure denial of existence. This means that it is literally an error to > look up "localhost" with DNS--you will get a failure instead of an IPv4 or > IPv6 address. I don't see any particular harm in having this reviewed in > DNSOP, but I hope it doesn't take too long. > > On Nov 17, 2016 13:04, "Dan York" <y...@isoc.org> wrote: > > > Ted, > > > > > On Nov 17, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > > > > > Just to play the devil's advocate here, what does this have to do with > > DNS? > > > > From the abstract: > > > > This document updates RFC6761 by requiring that the domain > > "localhost." and any names falling within ".localhost." resolve to > > loopback addresses. This would allow other specifications to join > > regular users in drawing the common-sense conclusions that > > "localhost" means "localhost", and doesn't resolve to somewhere else > > on the network. > > > > It's an update to RFC 6761 and all about resolution of "localhost". > > > > To me that seems like a DNS issue... and since we already have a heap of > > open issues with 6761, this would seem to be one more thing to consider. > > > > I should mention that Terry Manderson (INT AD) and Joel Jaeggli (OPS AD) > > were both in the SUNSET4 room and agreed they would have a discussion about > > which WG this document should live in. Both agreed that DNSOP should at > > least definitely look at it. > > > > Peter Koch and I both recommended from the mic that it be brought to DNSOP > > (which I guess I then did by posting it here). > > > > Peter also mentioned that there was a long history with the resolution > > around "localhost" and that this topic had been discussed at length > > multiple times. (I took it that he was not saying it should NOT be brought > > up again, but rather that the authors should be aware that it had a good > > bit of history.) > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > >
pgp8jB5ZoWC5l.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
