Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:17:43 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Let 'localhost' be localhost.
        Author          : Mike West
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-00.txt
	Pages           : 9
	Date            : 2017-10-24

Abstract:
   This document updates RFC6761 with the goal of ensuring that
   "localhost" can be safely relied upon as a name for the local host's
   loopback interface.  To that end, stub resolvers are required to
   resolve localhost names to loopback addresses.  Recursive DNS servers
   are required to return "NXDOMAIN" when queried for localhost names,
   making non-conformant stub resolvers more likely to fail and produce
   problem reports that result in updates.

   Together, these requirements would allow applications and
   specifications to join regular users in drawing the common-sense
   conclusions that "localhost" means "localhost", and doesn't resolve
   to somewhere else on the network.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Mike West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:37:50 +0200

Thanks for the robust discussion on the adoption thread, y'all. This -00 is
pretty much a copy of the -06 draft we discussed.

I intend to spin out an -01 shortly with the collected feedback from the
CfA thread. My impression is that there's a reasonable amount of feedback
that seems uncontrovercial, and a larger question of `localhost`'s
relationship to DNSSEC. My personal opinion is that Warren's summary in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg21129.html is a
pretty reasonable take on things, and a good basis for moving forward. :)

-mike

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:17 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>