Add support for TXT entries

[therc]

gRPC has a new proposal out for storing service configurations in TXT records:

grpc/proposal#5

If you use gRPC under Kubernetes, you will now have two choices:

1. use parallel DNS hierarchies, one managed by kube-dns, one by a more traditional DNS server just for the TXT records
2. extend kube-dns to support custom TXT records

I would prefer the second, by far. This could be accomplished through either an annotation or a new field on the service. Since I have some experience with kube-dns, having implemented ExternalName support, I can help with some/all the code, too. Of course, gRPC is just going to be one use case for the feature.

This seems to be related to, but still independent from kubernetes/kubernetes#6437

[thockin]

This isn't horrible, but I am not sure exactly how we would want to support it. @bowei

…

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Rudi C ***@***.***> wrote: gRPC has a new proposal out for storing service configurations in TXT records: grpc/proposal#5 <grpc/proposal#5> If you use gRPC under Kubernetes, you will now have two choices: 1. use parallel DNS hierarchies, one managed by kube-dns, one by a more traditional DNS server just for the TXT records 2. extend kube-dns to support custom TXT records I would prefer the second, by far. This could be accomplished through either an annotation or a new field on the service. Since I have some experience with kube-dns, having implemented ExternalName support, I can help with some/all the code, too. Of course, gRPC is just going to be one use case for the feature. This seems to be related to, but still independent from kubernetes/kubernetes#6437 <kubernetes/kubernetes#6437> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#38>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFVgVOd7DOoO3zGRfmLrdKxwdvy_BpWqks5rVWC_gaJpZM4LrylW> .

[bowei]

@therc -- let's start with a strawman proposal -- you can create a pull request against the docs/specification and proceed from there

[cmluciano]

@therc I can help out with this once we have a proposal.

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

Prevent issues from auto-closing with an /lifecycle frozen comment.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or @fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[fejta-bot]

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or @fejta.
/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

[fejta-bot]

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/close