> > From: Bob Harold [mailto:rharo...@umich.edu] > > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 3:37 PM > > > > > > 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? >
Bob, thanks so much for your feedback. It helps to get more eyes on this and I feel strongly the more the community is involved the better this feature will be for everyone. We discussed changing the default delimiter to ':' for AAAA but must have missed it in editing before submitting this version. I personally feel the automatic ordering of backreferences feels more intuitive but you may be right. Ease of use is one of our primary motivations for this effort. Thanks again, John This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
_______________________________________________ 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
