4 ms·
I would very much like to see this draft extended to cover SRV lookup as well. Right now, section 3 of this draft would prohibit all SRV queries for localhost,
by inopinatus 9y ago
I would very much like to see this draft extended to cover SRV lookup as well.
Right now, section 3 of this draft would prohibit all SRV queries for localhost, which may hinder development and deployment of a SRV based application. That's an immediate problem.
But not only are there existing applications to which it is immediately applicable - it is a design error in HTTP that plain address records are used for resolution. One day this will be corrected, in which case measures like this should continue to apply.
- JdeBP 9y agoIndeed. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dns-srv-record-use-by-clients.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/dns-srv-record-use-by-clients.html But what should such a standardized SRV lookup for _proto1._proto2.localhost. yield as the answer? For starters, what port numbers?
- inopinatus 9y agoSRV lookup for localhost names should yield a (probably identical) localhost name that (by the rest of this draft) necessarily then resolves to a loopback address. For ports we have the list of well-known services maintained by IANA, for which an extract appears on many systems in /etc/services. Local configuration can adjust as necessary.
- JdeBP 9y agoLocal configuration cannot adjust as necessary. Remember: the headlined article is something that is being proposed to fix into an RFC, and indeed the whole point of it is to hardwire something that, in fact, is currently a matter of local configuration.