Best practices for coding new RR Types
Bob Harold
rharolde at umich.edu
Mon Oct 19 19:36:36 UTC 2015
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Woodworth, John R <
John.Woodworth at centurylink.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka at isc.org]
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 7:08 PM
> > To: Woodworth, John R
> > Cc: 'bind-users at lists.isc.org'
> > Subject: Re: Best practices for coding new RR Types
> >
> >
> > In message
> <A05B583C828C614EBAD1DA920D92866BA5DDF69D at 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20151019/05f54e71/attachment.html>
More information about the bind-users
mailing list