On Jan 25, 2018, at 3:35 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote: > 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.
With all due respect, that's your stated opinion. I asked if you have some specific use case in mind where what the draft says will cause a problem. It sounds like the answer is no, but if I'm mistaken I'd like to hear what's motivating this opinion. >> 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? I think the answer is that the less it happens the better, and forbidding it is going to make it happen less. If it's just your personal preference not to do this, then the working group isn't saying you can't make an informed decision to go against what the spec says. We're just saying that the correct behavior is to not answer queries on localhost. If you decide not to follow the working group recommendation, that would be you deciding that you do not agree with the consensus on what the correct behavior is. It's still important for the working group to say what the correct behavior is (IMHO).
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
