Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

2017-08-13 Thread Tony Finch
> On 12 Aug 2017, at 22:35, Ted Lemon wrote: > > That is, the title of the document should be "DNS servers should return > NXDOMAIN for localhost" and the abstract should say why, and then the bit > about stub resolvers translating "localhost" to a reachable identifier for > the localhost suc

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

2017-08-13 Thread Ted Lemon
El 13 ag 2017, a les 13:19, Tony Finch va escriure: > RFC 6761 requires recursive servers to return positive 127.0.0.1 and ::1 > responses, not NXDOMAIN. I can't see an explanation in the draft for the > change to NXDOMAIN. The reason to return NXDOMAIN is that it causes stub resolvers that loo

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

2017-08-13 Thread Paul Hoffman
On 13 Aug 2017, at 10:19, Tony Finch wrote: On 12 Aug 2017, at 22:35, Ted Lemon wrote: That is, the title of the document should be "DNS servers should return NXDOMAIN for localhost" and the abstract should say why, and then the bit about stub resolvers translating "localhost" to a reachabl

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

2017-08-13 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 12 Aug 2017, at 18:31, Matthew Pounsett wrote: 8198 doesn't have an implementation status section https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-10#section-10 is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly) mandates that this section is removed before publication. I

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

2017-08-13 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 13 August 2017 at 18:14, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressive > use-10#section-10 is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly) > mandates that this section is removed before publication. I suspect this > removal is specifically hurting

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

2017-08-13 Thread Tony Finch
> On 13 Aug 2017, at 23:51, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 13 Aug 2017, at 10:19, Tony Finch wrote: >> >> >> RFC 6761 requires recursive servers to return positive 127.0.0.1 and ::1 >> responses, not NXDOMAIN. I can't see an explanation in the draft for the >> change to NXDOMAIN. > > And there

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

2017-08-13 Thread Lanlan Pan
Hi Paul, Maybe it makes a mountain out of a molehill. "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.“, we can seperate security issue and subdomain wildcard cache issue. I think, SWILD has no influence on DNSSEC deployment : 1) If recursive wants to