[DNSOP] Re: Introducing Relative Label for DNS

[Ben van Hartingsveldt <[e-mail]>]

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.
> - mail.example.com. IN MX 10 mx
> - mail.example.com. IN MX 10 mx.example.com.
> 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 -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]