Update inet_res et.al. for RFC6891; EDNS with DNSSEC OK bit #6786
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
CT Test Results 2 files 65 suites 1h 4m 6s ⏱️ For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit 4d2bf0d. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. To speed up review, make sure that you have read Contributing to Erlang/OTP and that all checks pass. See the TESTING and DEVELOPMENT HowTo guides for details about how to run test locally. Artifacts// Erlang/OTP Github Action Bot |
RaimoNiskanen
force-pushed
the
raimo/inet_dns-rfc6891/GH-6606
branch
from
29bd5cf
to
4d2bf0d
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves #6606.
This implements the only bit I noticed was missing for RFC6891 from the original EDNS RFC2671, that is the DNSSEC OK bit (DO) in the OPT RR. By this we should be able to claim supporting RFC6891.
Still, we do not have any other DNSSEC records implemented, so they will be a possible future improvement.
Has anyone tried to use
inet_resfor DNSSEC records? I try to set this bit to see if I can get records, but has not succeeded.inet_res:resolve("google.com", in, 30, [verbose, {edns, 0}, {dnssec_ok, true}])does not return any "30" record, which should be NXT RR. Any pointers?