[GH-ISSUE #646] Inclusion of "new" record types #263

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-07 23:06:36 +03:00 by kerem · 4 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-07 23:06:36 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @argantos on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/hickory-dns/hickory-dns/issues/646

I thought about writing a validator for SSH fingerprints / OPENPGP keys using the SSHFP and OPENPGPKEY DNS record types using this awesome project. The former is commented out, and the latter is not present. There may be even more non-omnipresent record types, so I am interested in the criteria when a record type should be included.

In my opinion, DANE methods (most prominentely TLSA) have a huge potential, and it would be nice to see more of them supported.

Originally created by @argantos on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/hickory-dns/hickory-dns/issues/646 I thought about writing a validator for SSH fingerprints / OPENPGP keys using the [SSHFP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSHFP_record) and [OPENPGPKEY](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7929) DNS record types using this awesome project. The former is [commented out](https://github.com/bluejekyll/trust-dns/blob/7c8a0739dad495bf5a4fddfe86b8bbe2aa52d060/crates/proto/src/rr/record_type.rs#L80), and the latter is not present. There may be even more non-omnipresent record types, so I am interested in the criteria when a record type should be included. In my opinion, DANE methods (most prominentely TLSA) have a huge potential, and it would be nice to see more of them supported.

kerem

2026-03-07 23:06:36 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
enhance

crate:proto
labels

kerem commented

2026-03-07 23:06:54 +03:00

Author

Owner

@bluejekyll commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019):

I’ve implemented what I’ve seen as “core” record types. I’m of course open to any standard types.

@bluejekyll commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019): I’ve implemented what I’ve seen as “core” record types. I’m of course open to any standard types.

kerem commented

2026-03-07 23:06:59 +03:00

Author

Owner

@argantos commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019):

The states of the respective RFCs are "proposed standard" (SSHFP) and "experimental" (OPENPGPKEY). Concerning OPENPGPKEY and other record types I have no strong opinion. Either way, one can always use the Unknown(u16) variant.

But I think SSHFP is ready to be added (it has been around since 2006, and is well-supported in OpenSSH). It was removed in this commit.

@argantos commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019): The states of the respective RFCs are "proposed standard" (SSHFP) and "experimental" (OPENPGPKEY). Concerning OPENPGPKEY and other record types I have no strong opinion. Either way, one can always use the Unknown(u16) variant. But I think SSHFP is ready to be added (it has been around since 2006, and is well-supported in OpenSSH). It was removed in [this commit](https://github.com/bluejekyll/trust-dns/commit/a8fe789836bbd3fb87fe95a1a90c465eb96e1c95#diff-547bf1ddff376596c96285d07bbb1411L38).

kerem commented

2026-03-07 23:07:04 +03:00

Author

Owner

@bluejekyll commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019):

Yes. Both of these should be fine. If you wanted to submit a patch, I’d happily review and accept.

@bluejekyll commented on GitHub (Jan 4, 2019): Yes. Both of these should be fine. If you wanted to submit a patch, I’d happily review and accept.

kerem commented

2026-03-07 23:07:09 +03:00

Author

Owner

@bluejekyll commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2019):

This was fixed with #647

@bluejekyll commented on GitHub (Jan 9, 2019): This was fixed with #647

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-15 22:25:55 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #263] Questionable implementation of DNSClass -> u16 conversion #423

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-15 22:26:45 +03:00