5 ms·

Just as a note; .dev is not yet an official TLD, it's on the status "proposed" which means that google is basically the highest priority on the waiting list. .

by tscs37 9y ago

Just as a note; .dev is not yet an official TLD, it's on the status "proposed" which means that google is basically the highest priority on the waiting list. .foo is delegated and thusly a full TLD, yes. On the other hand, you should not be using .localhost if the target is not running on your loopback interface, resolving localhost to anything but loopback is considered harmful. I find .test or .intranet to be more useful for such installations, they are either designated as "cannot be a TLD" or are very very unlikely to become a TLD, respectively.

mikl 9y ago
> should not be using .localhost if the target is not running on your loopback interface, resolving localhost to anything but loopback is considered harmful. I have heard this before, but not really seen any great arguments as to why. Sure, `localhost` should not be bound to anything other than loopback, but I don’t see the harm in remapping `whatever.localhost` to the IP address of the Vagrant box running on your local machine.
- tscs37 9y ago
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-04 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-let-localhost-be-loca... The problem is that while the loopback addresses can be mapped as a secure context, even without HTTPS, .localhost. cannot since it might not be a loopback context. You can literally use anything else to map to your vagrant box including "whatever.i-dont-care" and "whatever.whatever". Remapping .localhost. destroys the implicit assumption of many developers that a .localhost. means loopback and rightfully the above draft proposes to force any resolve to either fail or resolve to loopback.
  - mikl 9y ago
    Which developers? I’ve never heard of anyone using whatever.localhost in their code, assuming it will map to loopback? Sane developers use localhost, or localhost.localdomain in some cases.
    - tscs37 9y ago
      it's usually not in the code but in testing or dev environments. Makes developing multi-server apps a bit easier since I can point it all to loopback without worry. (Plus using multiple loopback addresses helps)
lamby 9y ago
> I find .test or .intranet to be more useful for such installations, Or, making a tradeoff from "accuracy" to "less magical" - ".chrome-hsts"
- tscs37 9y ago
  If you really want to go down that rabbit holy: ".no-hsts" is still not taken, I believe so you can probably set it up as a private TLD in your hosts file.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Use one of the four TLDs from RFC 2606 that are guaranteed to never be delegated. Picking another random TLD that hasn't been delegated yet (but may be in the future) isn't a good idea.
    - tscs37 9y ago
      True, but ".no-hsts" is unlikely to get HSTS enabled.
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        That is far from the worst potential problem with using it, though. The biggest problem is if it does get delegated and you do not end up owning the actual "domain names" that you are using. You are now leaking web traffic to some unknown third party.
wut42 9y ago
I think you are wrong: * DEV is listed on the "delegated strings" page of ICANN[0] * `dig dev. ns +short` returns a couple of nameservers, the one of Charleston Road Registry: Google's registry. [0]: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strin...
- tscs37 9y ago
  https://icannwiki.org/.dev https://icannwiki.org/.dev The ICANN Wiki specifically lists the .dev domain as proposed, not delegated. Which means they can also just kill it and Google won't have it.
  - wereHamster 9y ago
    Who do you want to trust more, the DNS root servers or a wiki (which might be outdated, because "This page was last modified on 1 August 2014, at 10:04"). Is the wiki even ran by ICANN, given it's on a separate domain, or by a separate entity or volunteers?
    - ad133 9y ago
      I think you're right on this, for example .moi, which Amazon is taking registrations for (and has been for six months or so), is still listed on that wiki as proposed.
    - tscs37 9y ago
      Then I might be wrong, yes.
  - dannyw 9y ago
    The ICANN wiki is unofficial.
  - wut42 9y ago
    I don't think this is up-to-date: * On https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/dev-2014-10-16-en https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/dev-2014-10-16-en you can see the agreement between ICANN and Charleston Road Registry to operate the TLD for 10 years * other pages on the wiki for TLDs that you can already register now still shows "proposed"

by tscs37 9y ago

mikl 9y ago

> should not be using .localhost if the target is not running on your loopback interface, resolving localhost to anything but loopback is considered harmful. I have heard this before, but not really seen any great arguments as to why. Sure, `localhost` should not be bound to anything other than loopback, but I don’t see the harm in remapping `whatever.localhost` to the IP address of the Vagrant box running on your local machine.

tscs37 9y ago
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-04 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-west-let-localhost-be-loca... The problem is that while the loopback addresses can be mapped as a secure context, even without HTTPS, .localhost. cannot since it might not be a loopback context. You can literally use anything else to map to your vagrant box including "whatever.i-dont-care" and "whatever.whatever". Remapping .localhost. destroys the implicit assumption of many developers that a .localhost. means loopback and rightfully the above draft proposes to force any resolve to either fail or resolve to loopback.
- mikl 9y ago
  Which developers? I’ve never heard of anyone using whatever.localhost in their code, assuming it will map to loopback? Sane developers use localhost, or localhost.localdomain in some cases.
  - tscs37 9y ago
    it's usually not in the code but in testing or dev environments. Makes developing multi-server apps a bit easier since I can point it all to loopback without worry. (Plus using multiple loopback addresses helps)

lamby 9y ago

> I find .test or .intranet to be more useful for such installations, Or, making a tradeoff from "accuracy" to "less magical" - ".chrome-hsts"

tscs37 9y ago
If you really want to go down that rabbit holy: ".no-hsts" is still not taken, I believe so you can probably set it up as a private TLD in your hosts file.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Use one of the four TLDs from RFC 2606 that are guaranteed to never be delegated. Picking another random TLD that hasn't been delegated yet (but may be in the future) isn't a good idea.
  - tscs37 9y ago
    True, but ".no-hsts" is unlikely to get HSTS enabled.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      That is far from the worst potential problem with using it, though. The biggest problem is if it does get delegated and you do not end up owning the actual "domain names" that you are using. You are now leaking web traffic to some unknown third party.

wut42 9y ago

I think you are wrong: * DEV is listed on the "delegated strings" page of ICANN[0] * `dig dev. ns +short` returns a couple of nameservers, the one of Charleston Road Registry: Google's registry. [0]: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strin...

tscs37 9y ago
https://icannwiki.org/.dev https://icannwiki.org/.dev The ICANN Wiki specifically lists the .dev domain as proposed, not delegated. Which means they can also just kill it and Google won't have it.
- wereHamster 9y ago
  Who do you want to trust more, the DNS root servers or a wiki (which might be outdated, because "This page was last modified on 1 August 2014, at 10:04"). Is the wiki even ran by ICANN, given it's on a separate domain, or by a separate entity or volunteers?
  - ad133 9y ago
    I think you're right on this, for example .moi, which Amazon is taking registrations for (and has been for six months or so), is still listed on that wiki as proposed.
  - tscs37 9y ago
    Then I might be wrong, yes.
- dannyw 9y ago
  The ICANN wiki is unofficial.
- wut42 9y ago
  I don't think this is up-to-date: * On https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/dev-2014-10-16-en https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/dev-2014-10-16-en you can see the agreement between ICANN and Charleston Road Registry to operate the TLD for 10 years * other pages on the wiki for TLDs that you can already register now still shows "proposed"