Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

2017-08-13 Thread Ted Lemon
El 13 ag 2017, a les 13:19, Tony Finch va escriure: > RFC 6761 requires recursive servers to return positive 127.0.0.1 and ::1 > responses, not NXDOMAIN. I can't see an explanation in the draft for the > change to NXDOMAIN. The reason to return NXDOMAIN is that it causes stub

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

2017-08-13 Thread Tony Finch
> On 12 Aug 2017, at 22:35, Ted Lemon wrote: > > That is, the title of the document should be "DNS servers should return > NXDOMAIN for localhost" and the abstract should say why, and then the bit > about stub resolvers translating "localhost" to a reachable identifier for

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

2017-08-13 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 13 August 2017 at 18:14, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressive > use-10#section-10 is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly) > mandates that this section is removed before publication. I suspect this >

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

2017-08-13 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 12 Aug 2017, at 18:31, Matthew Pounsett wrote: 8198 doesn't have an implementation status section https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-10#section-10 is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly) mandates that this section is removed before publication.

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

2017-08-13 Thread Tony Finch
> On 13 Aug 2017, at 23:51, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 13 Aug 2017, at 10:19, Tony Finch wrote: >> >> >> RFC 6761 requires recursive servers to return positive 127.0.0.1 and ::1 >> responses, not NXDOMAIN. I can't see an explanation in the draft for the >> change to