Subject: [Int-area] 2606bis localhost and IPv6

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:09:16 +0200

Hi, the 2606bis draft proposes to modify the following three
paragraphs among others:

=== old ===
 The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
 host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the
 loop back IP address and is reserved for such use.  Any other use
 would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.
=== new ===
 The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
 host DNS implementations as having an address record pointing to the
 loop back IP address and is reserved for such use.  Any other use
 would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.

 See [RFC1122] for IPv4 and [RFC4291] for IPv6 loop back addresses.
=== end ===

Is that as it should be ?  Another modifications affects the use
of the various test pseudo-TLDs (.test + 11 new IDN test TLDs):

=== old ===
 ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
 related code.
=== new ===
 ".test" is RECOMMENDED for use in testing of current or new DNS
 related code.  Applications SHOULD treat ".test" like any other TLD;
 a special handling could defeat the purpose of a test.
=== end ===

The interesting bit is the SHOULD, the RECOMMENDED is only a 
side-effect of using RFC 2119 key words.  For .invalid it's a MAY:

=== old ===
 ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
 names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
 glance are invalid.
=== new ===
 ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain names
 that are sure to be invalid, and for which it is obvious at a glance
 that they are invalid.  Applications MAY treat ".invalid" as what the
 name says.
=== end ===

See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ellermann-idnabis-tests-tlds>
for the added IDN test TLDs, and extended security considerations.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:07:54 -0400

Hi,

See below at @@@.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Int-area] 2606bis localhost and IPv6

...

=== old ===

@@@ A problem I see is that "RECOMMENDED", in connection with .test,
implies that you should not deviate from it but 2606bis defines
additional testing TLDs.

@@@ Thanks,
@@@ Donald

...

 Frank

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:57:30 +0200

Donald Eastlake wrote:

>>| ".test" is RECOMMENDED for use in testing of current or new DNS
>>| related code.  Applications SHOULD treat ".test" like any other
>>| TLD; a special handling could defeat the purpose of a test.

>> side-effect of using RFC 2119 key words.
[...]
 
> A problem I see is that "RECOMMENDED", in connection with .test,

In the context of the complete memo that is hopefully clearer, but
adding a forward pointer might help:  

| ".test" and the TLDs listed in section 4 are RECOMMENDED for use

In theory the same objection could also affect the RECOMMENDED use
of TLD ".example" with respect to chapter 3 (example.cno), but you
had this as is in RFC 2606:  Readers figured out that they can use
*.example.cno and/or *.example as they see fit in their examples.

For the known reasons *now* is not a good time to touch a single
comma in the ten words of section 2.1 ".example" in the draft. ;-)

 Frank