Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am not nearly so enthusiastic about an important component of > the draft. Specifically, I'd like to suggest that while the > requirement for recursive resolvers to return NXDOMAIN for "localhost." > is well-intentioned, it will prove counter-productive to the > motivating goals of this draft.
This is a legitimate worry, but it's based on incorrect information. Stub resolvers already sink localhost queries themselves - they don't rely on their recursive servers. Recursive servers frequently do not implement the localhost requirement in RFC 6761 - for example, BIND does not. So in practice this draft is only a small tweak to current practice. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Portland, Plymouth, Biscay: West or southwest veering northwest, 5 to 7. Rough or very rough. Thundery showers, squally at times. Mainly good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
