On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Woodworth, John R < john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 7:08 PM > > To: Woodworth, John R > > Cc: 'bind-users@lists.isc.org' > > Subject: Re: Best practices for coding new RR Types > > > > > > In message > <a05b583c828c614ebad1da920d92866ba5ddf...@podcwmbxex501.ctl.intranet > > >, "Woodworth, John R" writes: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am trying to implement logic for an experimental (Internet Draft) RR > > > type and follow most of the code flow but am curious if there is a > > > common methodology beyond trying to duplicate another record with > > > similar attributes. > > > > That's basically what we do. Cut and paste different field types from > existing RR > > types. Take extreme care as this is a extremely security sensitive area > of the > > nameserver as it is parsing data received from untrusted sources. Think > edge cases. > > > > Mark, thanks for the quick response and letting me know I was on the right > track. I am > using some of bind's safety-nets I find along the way to sanitize the > records by-example > and have attempted to keep an eye on potential misuse. > > > > B.T.W. which RR are you trying to implement? All the ones with assigned > values > > are implemented. > > > This is fairly early in the process and we are still waiting for > assignments. I figured > it would be a good idea to first get some reference code ready for a few > nameserver > implementations to aid in quick adoption once things <optimism>fall into > place</optimism>. > > We were looking at bind (de facto), unbound and powerDNS (for live DNSSEC > signing) but it > appears bind now has in-line signing so we may be able to limit our > efforts. > > If you are interested, I've provided the link below but keep in mind while > we are very > enthusiastic about the RR this is only a first draft. > > [ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-woodworth-bulk-rr/ ] > > > Thanks again, > John > > Section 2.3, example 2 (PTR) looks wrong: [0-255].[0-255].55.10.in-addr.arpa. pool-A-${1}-${2}.example.com. Should be reversed {1} and {2}: [0-255].[0-255].55.10.in-addr.arpa. pool-A-${2}-${1}.example.com. -- But I see now that 3.4.1.1.8 reverses the order. I find that confusing, and would rather have a consistent order, and use 3.4.1.1.9 if needed. Section 3.4.1.1.5. Backreference delimiter For AAAA, would ":" be a better default delimiter? Do AAAA records use dots anywhere?
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
