Ol>> I'm not sure ic.ddn would count as a DDN record, because it's not Ol>> in the f*.n*.z*.ddn namespace. TXT records are also not covered by Ol>> FTS-5004.
PG> FTS-5004 specifies contents of a DNS zone for being DDN. And according to PG> this FTS no records other than generated from the nodelist should appear PG> in the zone.
Is this how DNS is intended to work? The binkp client also does not care about anything that does not match *.f*.n*.z*.ddn-zone.
PG> Formally even SOA record violates this FTS, and I think this PG> should be fixed to allow additional information which may be useful.
or MX, TXT records for SPF, ...
PG> Alexey (author of this FTS) told that DNS zone which contains additional PG> information (such as IP addresses of points) is not DDN according by PG> FTS-5004.
Interesting. To quote FTS-5004:
P - Point Number: If the system is a point rather than a node then this is their point number at that node. Optional. If ".P" is missing then assume 0 (node itself).
What is the point in mentioning points in the FTS, when there are no points in the world nodelist and everything else is forbidden? ;)
Ol>> Not sure what a "DDN NS zones" is supposed to mean.
In DNS-speak there is no such thing as a "NS zone". NS is short for nameserver and DNS stands for Domain Name System. There is the NS record. But "NS zone" does not compute. If people try to write standards, they should use words that have a defined meaning or it becomes a ambiguous mess free for interpretation.
I also think DNS zones and NS records are completely irrelevant for the DDN standard. We are talking about the DDN domain, not about zones.
"A domain is a logical division of the DNS name space whereas a zone is physical, as the information is stored in a file called a zone file."
But if the standard did really mean DNS zone, you would only need a NS record, that sets a boundary to the zone like
something.ddn.example.com IN NS ns2.example.com
"A zone is a domain less any sub-domains delegated to other DNS servers"
PG> May be, we can change this paragraph to something like "DDN MUST contains PG> all information about IP addresses from the world nodelist and MUST NOT PG> modify this information. DDN CAN contain information from other sources PG> (pointlists, fresh network segments etc) only in addition to information PG> from the world nodelist".
Question is: if there were multiple DDN services, would it be okay that each one could have different additional records from other sources or should every DDN be exactly the same?
PG> Sorry, it's not about using binkp.net by sysop in the mailer for resolve PG> nodes. Sure, nobody can forbid it. It's about using binkp.net in INA flag PG> in the nodelist - Alexey says it's XAB because it violates FTS-5004.
Now I get it. I would agree that it is problematic, because the z*.binkp.net namespace also includes records that are generated from the nodelist. Why not use *.dyn.binkp.net and *.node.binkp.net addresses in the nodelist -> problem solved.
(Still, threatening to DDoS binkp.net is dumb)
--- * Origin: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. (2:280/464.47)
