That could be a solution, but I doubt if that is a good one. The Label
Type has the smallest range of all DNS parameters. Most private use
ranges appear as part of in 16-bit (65536) parameters or 8-bit (256)
parameters. Label Type is actually 6-bits (64), assuming you want to use
10xxxxxx for it.
Also, I don't want this 0x40 label type not in a private use range. Yes,
the label is used in confined systems, so other systems don't need to
implement it. The label type is only used on authoritve servers, so for
DNS Operators that want to use it for their zones. Recursive servers,
like 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8 should not use this. Recursive servers only
keep track of full absolute records and aren't aware of any zones and
zone cuts, so the relative label type must not appear there.
So, simply said: The relative label type is only for DNS Operators of
Authoritive DNS servers that want to save their records relatively in
binary (fully confined) AND to give their customers the possibility to
view/modify relative records using DNS UPDATE (partly confined, because
visible by customer). I think that last thing makes the label type to
important to just throw in the private use range.
Q Misell schreef op 2024-08-16 09:15:
What might make more sense is to define a range (via standards action)
for private use, as there is in other DNS parameters.
-------------------------
Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and
are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically
stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13
Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca
Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 [3], LEI
875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 [4]. UK VAT №:
GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524.
South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a
registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla,
Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered
in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca
Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under
№ UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively.
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 18:04, Ben van Hartingsveldt
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear all,
Thanks for the responses I received. I got some useful feedback that
helped me improve the drafts.
As Peter Thomassen already mentioned earlier, I was talking about a
label type mainly for confined systems only. Except for some small
exceptions, a record will never leave the DNS server in its relative
form. This means that introducing it will not break current DNS,
because
the label type is only used in systems that want to use it, and
systems
should not expect other systems to support it too, so I'm really
talking
about confined systems here. I wanted to clarify that, because I
didn't
yet use that word in my drafts and there seemed some confusion about
it.
After all, I still hope I succeed in registering the label at IANA.
I
still think there is usecase for it. At least, I will use it in my
confined systems, but some others might too. However, the
registration
procedure at IANA for this registry is "Standards Action", so it
seems
to me that the IESG has to approve it too, else I would have gone
for
independent submission.
Also, when I create a new draft that adds the word "confined" to the
text, what other things should I add, change or remove in order to
improve it? Because some interpreted my draft differently, are there
some texts I wasn't fully clear? Please let me know.
Thanks in advance
Ben
Ben van Hartingsveldt schreef op 2024-07-26 09:07:
Dear all,
Today, I released a new version of the draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yocto-dns-relative-label-02.
I replaced the term "record" with "resource record", updated the
reference to the EDNS RFC, and added an Acknowledgements section.
@Peter Thomassen: Is it possible to make some list with all
interop
problems for this draft? With such list, I can look for ways to
address
them; or that I conclude to reframe the draft to be for confined
systems only.
Ben
Ben van Hartingsveldt schreef op 2024-07-23 08:56:
Dear all,
Today, I released a new version of the draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yocto-dns-relative-label-01.
I tried to clarify things a little bit more, added some examples
and
fixed some references.
Ben
Ben van Hartingsveldt schreef op 2024-07-21 18:50:
Dear all,
In the recent years I started working on my own coded DNS
server,
because I was done with the synchronization between BIND and
DirectAdmin that broke all the time. It resulted in a Java
server
that is running on 4 IPs for some years now. Because of this, I
had
to read many RFCs to have it pass tests like Zonemaster, DNSViz,
IntoDNS, etc. While reading and implementing things, I also came
across some shortcomings of DNS. On advice of someone at SIDN, I
will
share my draft that I published today. It solves one of the
shortcomings that DNS has in its core: relative domain names.
I'm talking about
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yocto-dns-relative-label-00.
This draft is meant to solve the problem that we cannot use
relative
domain names in the DNS system, specificly in DNS UPDATE and in
binary zone files. This also means that this draft is not meant
for
use with the QUERY opcode (except for possibly AXFR and IXFR).
Let me
explain those two usecases.
1) DNS UPDATE: In DNS UPDATE it is possible to update the zone
using
DNS itself. This can be used in routers when dynamic DNS is
wanted,
but also in other situations. Imagine wanting to add an MX
record.
Using a webinterface, you are likely able to chooses one of the
following four options:
- mail IN MX 10 mx
- mail IN MX 10 mx.example.com [1].
- mail.example.com [2]. IN MX 10 mx
- mail.example.com [2]. IN MX 10 mx.example.com [1].
However, using DNS UPDATE you are only able to add the record
with
fourth format; both record name and FQDN field have to be
absolute.
This means that when I return to the webinterface, I will likely
see
absolute domain names, even when I use relative domain names in
my
other records. My draft wants to give the client more control
over
when to use relative and when to use absolute domain names by
adding
a new label type.
2) Binary Zone Files: Since BIND 9, it is possible to save zones
in a
binary format. This is possible to enable/disable using
`masterfile-format`. It is possible to convert the textual
format to
binary and vice versa. However, when converting to binary, the
zone
file will loose the knowledge of knowing which domain names
where
absolute and which where relative. This means that converting
the
zone back from binary to text will likely give you a zone with
only
absolute domain names. As with DNS UPDATE, this is a shortcoming
of
the wire format used by DNS.
That is why I wrote this draft. Like BIND, my own DNS system
also
uses binary zone storage and in the future I'm planning to
implement
DNS UPDATE too. I also believe my draft is not yet perfect. I'm
not a
native English speaker and maybe just format to mention
something
important. That is why I want you to give your honest opinion on
this
topic. Do you agree with the problem? Does DNS need such label?
Did I
make a typo? Etc.
Please let me know.
Thanks in advance
Ben van Hartingsveldt
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Links:
------
[1] http://mx.example.com
[2] http://mail.example.com
[3]
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574
[4] https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
