Suggestion to the (first, Section 1) suggestion: s/go detected/be detected/
- Kevin -----Original Message----- From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ???? Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:24 PM To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02 At Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:18:08 -0500, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please focus feedback on: Is this draft ready to go to the IESG for > approval as an RFC? If not, can you suggest specific changes it needs? I myself don't have a particular opinion on whether to send it to the IESG, but I don't think it's ready for it based on my understanding of the WG discussion so far. In particular, I don't think I saw a wg consensus about one major objection to the idea: "I'd like to keep my right of configuring my DNS servers (authoritative or recursive) to return whatever I want to 'localhost' queries". Again, I personally don't claim this right, but I see the concern. If my observation is correct and the WG has actually not reached a clear consensus on this, I believe it should first achieve it. If I miss a reached consensus, I wouldn't oppose to it, but I believe the draft should discuss how/why it justifies dismissing such concerns. Some specific comments on the 02 version follow. - (editorial) Section 1: This increases the likelihood that non-conformant stub resolvers will not go undetected. This is a kind of double negation ('not...undetected') and it was difficult to me to understand it on a first read. I'd suggest revising it to, e.g: This increases the likelihood that non-conformant stub resolvers will go detected. - Section 2 The domain "localhost.", and any names falling within ".localhost.", are known as "localhost names". I'm afraid this definition can be a bit ambiguous. It could read as if "a.localhost.example.' is a 'localhost name'. I'd suggest: The domain "localhost.", and any names ending with "localhost.", are known as "localhost names". - Section 3 1. Users are free to use localhost names as they would any other domain names. It's not clear to me what this sentence means. - Section 3 7. DNS Registries/Registrars MUST NOT grant requests to register localhost names in the normal way to any person or entity. It's a bit awkward to me to use an RFC2119 keyword for what registries/registrars should (or should not) do. - Section 5.1 In this case, the requirement that the application resolve localhost names on its own may be safe to ignore, but only if all the requirements under point 2 of Section 3 are known to be followed by the resolver that is known to be present in the target environment. I don't understand this sentence, especially the phrase "if all the requirements under point 2 of Section 3 are known to be followed by the resolver". Point 2 of Section 3 talks about application behavior (and I interpret "application" is a user of resolver, not resolver itself), so what does it mean by "known to be followed by the resolver"? - Section 5.2 Hosts like "localhost.example.com" and "subdomain.localhost.example.com" contain a "localhost" label, but are not themselves localhost names, as they do not fall within "localhost.". I suggest: 'as they do not end with "localhost.".' (see my comment on Section 2 above). - Section 6.1 Some application software differentiates between the hostname "localhost" and the IP address "127.0.0.1". You might also want to refer to ::1 here. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ 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