> On 31 Jul 2019, at 6:51 am, Dan Mahoney <dmaho...@isc.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Paul Ebersman wrote: > >> dmahoney> I'd be fine with this data ONLY living on the master, but >> dmahoney> having it survive things like named-compilezone or rndc >> dmahoney> freeze/thaw, or the slew of DDNS updates that things like ACME >> dmahoney> DNS-01 requires. >> >> dmahoney> Effectively, this would be an internal-only DNS record that >> dmahoney> had a database representation but NO defined wire-format, so >> dmahoney> there'd be little chance of snooping over the wire (absent >> dmahoney> some kind of memory leak in the DNS implementation). >> >> Gotcha. So presumably also only on hidden master if that's the >> architecture. >> >> And transfer of data with these super-comments would be done by file >> copy, not any DNS standard method? >> > > Correct. I do also envision a limited use-case for this feature where > BIND might also add a note indicating the source/time of a DDNS update. > But again, purely for humans, not for any action by the nameserver. > > One possible format might be: > > ;NOTE foo.bar. NOTE "pauls workstation”
I would do it as '$NOTE <name> <text>' rather than as a comment which gets mapped to “<name> 0 <class> NOTE <text>”. This formalises the construct and wont accidentally covert any existing comments that start with “;NOTE “. > -Dan > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
