This may seem a little strange, contrarian even, given how implacably opposed to new things in this space pending some sanity, but I am actually, broadly speaking, in favour of defining the world as it is, regarding localhost.
If somebody seeks to invent something new, that is a discussion of its own merits. but if we are saying the IETF has a long standing practice of believing what localhost is, and we should account for that state, I would be very happy. It feels to me like state of .arpa, substates of .arpa (not all the dots are zonecuts), state of localhost, lie in a space which *is* about the IETF, and what we think we have definitional behaviour in regarding the DNS and names-to-addresses I don't entirely feel the same about ipv4only.arpa but since its off the root, its less significant for me. -g On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
