Hi, I wasn’t aware of this draft and will have to take a look at it, but note that the DNSOP charter includes:
6. Publish documents that attempt to better define the overlapping area among the public DNS root, DNS-like names as used in local or restricted naming scopes, and the 'special names' registry that IETF manages, perhaps including how they might interact. This work must take into consideration issues that are strictly beyond the operation of the DNS itself, and the working group will consult with IETF liaisons to other organizations as appropriate. Having Terry and Joel discuss sounds about right to me, and we’re happy to review the draft as appropriate. Suzanne > On Nov 16, 2016, at 11:04 PM, 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
