Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

proposal: net: add LookupSOA function #35061

Closed
thatnerdjosh opened this issue Oct 21, 2019 · 12 comments
Closed

proposal: net: add LookupSOA function #35061

thatnerdjosh opened this issue Oct 21, 2019 · 12 comments

Comments

@thatnerdjosh
Copy link

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh commented Oct 21, 2019

What version of Go are you using (go version)?

$ go version
go version go1.13 linux/amd64

Does this issue reproduce with the latest release?

Yes

What operating system and processor architecture are you using (go env)?

go env Output
$ go env | egrep "GOARCH|GOOS"
GOARCH="amd64"
GOOS="linux"

What did you do?

Looked at source of net package under the net.go file

What did you expect to see?

LookupSOA functions

What did you see instead?

Not implemented, I am interested in helping implement this based on the other helpers such as LookupIP if these just haven't been implemented yet

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh changed the title net: Missing LookupSOA, LookupPTR net: Missing LookupSOA Oct 22, 2019
@agnivade agnivade added this to the Unplanned milestone Oct 22, 2019
@gopherbot
Copy link

@gopherbot gopherbot commented Oct 22, 2019

Change https://golang.org/cl/202599 mentions this issue: net: Add LookupSOA methods

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor changed the title net: Missing LookupSOA proposal: net: add LookupSOA function Oct 22, 2019
@gopherbot gopherbot added the Proposal label Oct 22, 2019
@ianlancetaylor
Copy link
Contributor

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor commented Oct 22, 2019

This is new API so I've turned it into a proposal.

I wonder if this should be in the x/net package somewhere.

@thatnerdjosh
Copy link
Author

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh commented Oct 22, 2019

@ianlancetaylor should we also move unused DNS related functions such as LookupTXT? There may be others as well

There is https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/net/dns/dnsmessage, maybe it can go in x/net/dns somewhere?

I understand the goal is to keep stdlib as minimal as possible

@ianlancetaylor
Copy link
Contributor

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor commented Oct 22, 2019

We can't move any existing functions. I'm just not sure whether any news ones are needed.

@thatnerdjosh
Copy link
Author

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh commented Oct 22, 2019

Ok, should I close this issue and find an alternate solution or does this mean we are waiting :)

@ianlancetaylor
Copy link
Contributor

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor commented Oct 22, 2019

This issue is currently a proposal and the proposal review committee will look at it.

It's kind of up to you how you want to proceed.

@thatnerdjosh
Copy link
Author

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh commented Oct 22, 2019

I am fine with whichever direction is decided, I will leave this open til there is a decision

@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

@rsc rsc commented Nov 27, 2019

There are many many DNS record types. We can't support all of them in package net.
We support the ones that have seemed the most necessary for end-user (non-DNS) programs,
that is programs doing something other than DNS.
SOA records seem to be needed exclusively by programs whose domain is DNS itself.
That would suggest we should not support them in package net.
We are also reluctant to add more code in x/net/dns without an active maintainer,
and this is something that can be provided by an external library just as easily.
See for example https://github.com/miekg/dns.

@rsc rsc added this to Incoming in Proposals Nov 27, 2019
@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

@rsc rsc commented Jan 15, 2020

Based on the discussion above, this seems like a likely decline.

@rsc rsc moved this from Incoming to Likely Decline in Proposals Jan 15, 2020
@thatnerdjosh
Copy link
Author

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh commented Jan 19, 2020

@rsc in this case, I have no objections on this, I was expecting this would likely get declined after conversation with others anyhow :)

@thatnerdjosh
Copy link
Author

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh commented Jan 19, 2020

Reopening until/if a decline is final

@thatnerdjosh thatnerdjosh reopened this Jan 19, 2020
@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

@rsc rsc commented Jan 22, 2020

No change in consensus, so declined.

@rsc rsc closed this Jan 22, 2020
@rsc rsc moved this from Likely Decline to Declined in Proposals Jan 22, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Proposals
Declined
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.