At Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:47:29 +0100, Petr Špaček <petr.spa...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > 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 > > Software is still free to provide knobs to deviate its behavior from > RFC, which is nothing unusual when it comes to DNS(SEC). > > Is there a real problem to solve? My understanding is that this document > is stating what software should do by default. Hmm, that's different from my interpretation of the draft. According to my usual interpretation of IETF docs, I would interpret these from Section 3: 3. Name resolution APIs and libraries MUST recognize localhost names as special, and MUST always return an appropriate IP loopback address for IPv4 and IPv6 address queries and negative responses for all other query types. Name resolution APIs MUST NOT send queries for localhost names to their configured recursive DNS server(s). As for application software, name resolution APIs and libraries MUST NOT use a searchlist to resolve a localhost name. 4. (Caching) recursive DNS servers MUST respond to queries for localhost names with NXDOMAIN. 5. Authoritative DNS servers MUST respond to queries for localhost names with NXDOMAIN. as these are requirements without a user-configurable knob. If the actual intent was just to specify the default behavior with a configurable knob, I'd expect SHOULD-variants are used in cases like these. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop