On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:02:27PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:54 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> > I'm fine with recursive resolvers not *forwarding*
> > "localhost.", but forbidding local answers is I think taking it
> > too far and counter-productive.
>
> Can you talk about why you think this is important?
In summary, existing "localhost" zones are fine and should not come
into a violation of a new RFC. Secondly, returning the expected
address records at each opportunity to do so, without punting
the problem downstream is the most sensible way to achieve the
stated motivating goals.
> Also, it's worth bearing in mind that regardless of what this
> document says, you can always answer queries to 'localhost.' Is
> there a reason why that's not enough to satisfy your use case?
If it is going to happen anyway, why forbid it?
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
