Hi, On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:26:40PM -0600, Ted Lemon wrote: > > As for why I responded to this and not to the formal review, the answer is > that the formal review was a bit overwhelming. You made a lot of assertions > of fact that didn't sound like fact to me—they sounded like strongly-held > opinion.
Hmm. I should do better. I apologise. > The problem I have is that to me it's dead obvious that the name hierarchy > and the set of names in the DNS are not the same thing. Me too. Hence the distinction with local and invalid compared to localhost. > But you explain your reasoning on the basis that clearly they are the same > set, and that they are the same set is left unexamined. No, I'm arguing that the _existing behaviour_ according to RFCs and long-standing practice (including that of the BSD resolver) is that the distinction between the global DNS zones and the handling of localhost is not observed in the way that it most certainly (by documentation) should be for local. I don't think it's ok to try to legislate by RFC, and I think that this is an example of attempting to do so: to make a name that already appears today in the DNS (localhost) go away. Every root server on the planet, _for its own purposes_, ought to be authoritative for localhost. There is no reason therefore that it should present a lie (NXDOMAIN) when asked by someone else. That's different from local, where in fact in the DNS there _is_ no zone beneath local. I hope that at least explains what I'm worried about. I do think that keeping the distinction between "domains in the DNS" and "domains" is useful. I think we may disagree about the boundary. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
