Oh, wait, I just realized one question: What about reverse zones for "localhost" addresses specified in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6303#section-4.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6303#section-4.3
It seems to me that it should be handled in similar way, i.e. answered with NXDOMAIN. RFC 6303 says that we should have empty domain for it, but this part is confusing: The recommendation to serve an empty zone 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA is not an attempt to discourage any practice to provide a PTR RR for 1.0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA locally. PTR is DNS-specific term, so I'm not sure if it is clumsy expression for "stub should hardcode the answer" or something else. Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC On 24.1.2018 17:19, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 22.1.2018 17:18, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This is the opening of the Working Group Last Call for "Let 'localhost' be >> localhost” >> (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02.txt). >> >> We’ll end it in two weeks, on February 5, 2018. >> >> Please focus feedback on: Is this draft ready to go to the IESG for approval >> as an RFC? > > Yes, I've reviewed version 02 and it seems ready to me. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
