[Standards] Re: IDNA text for rfc3920bis
b+jabber at bruce-2007.zerlargal.org
Tue Apr 17 00:14:06 UTC 2007
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Mridul wrote:
>> I think the query was because :
>> If you used only hostnames - then they get resolved to the default domain :
>> like peer1, peer2, etc would resolve to peer1.domain and work.
>> With peer1.localhost, unless you have resolution entries for these in the
>> dns, it would not work (and other than /etc/hosts style entries - which are
>> a pain to maintain across nodes).
> According to RFC 2606:
> 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.
> So, "foo.localhost" pointing to another machine seems right out.
The quoted paragraph refers to most applications expecting a query for
'localhost' to be replied to with the address of the local loopback
device. As long as this is adhered to, there is no reason for
'foo.localhost' to also exist.
(not quite the right forum for dns102 ;) )
>> For argument sake, we could envision that for high availability nodes ...
>> use fully resolved hostnames.
Fully resolvable within the given environment, sure. If said environment
does not include the wider Internet, make sure the domain identifiers used
within do not leak out (and 2606's intent is to ensure that damage caused
by such leaks is kept to a minimum).
More information about the Standards