5 ms·
> This has been an issue plaguing Alpine for years where the musl maintainer basically said the standard says may fallback, not must fallback. Let the rest of t
by LexiMax 3y ago
> This has been an issue plaguing Alpine for years where the musl maintainer basically said the standard says may fallback, not must fallback. Let the rest of the internet change, we don't feel this is important. We're standards complainant.
I've never really understood the underlying mentality that causes maintainers to bend over backwards to _not_ provide popular functionality like this.
Reminds me a bit of the strlcpy/strlcat debacle with glibc.
- akira2501 3y agoPeople confuse purity with quality all the time.
- baq 3y agoAnd since we’re talking about Debian, stability with stagnation.
- tptacek 3y agoIn this case it's not so much "popular functionality" as "core mechanism of the protocol". TCP DNS isn't a quality of life feature; it's necessary in order to look up record sets with e.g. lots of IPv6 addresses, because UDP DNS has a sharply limited response size.
- geocar 3y agoWhy would anyone want an RRset with more than 20 AAAA RRs? What would they be doing with it that they couldn’t do better (faster/less bugs/risk) another way?
- marcus0x62 3y agoI'm sure they have their reasons. Some might even be good. Here's something I know I want: for my resolver to resolve valid DNS queries, no matter how stupid I believe the remote zone's maintainers to be.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 3y agoSorry, I missed the spot in the DNS RFCs where they said RRsets are limited to 20 records. Got a reference? Thanks!
- geocar 3y agoYeah gets() used to be in the standards too. Some standards are dumb. I think this one might be dumb too which is why I’m asking.
- tptacek 3y agoYou think the DNS standards might be dumb because they're not limiting enough?
- geocar 3y agoYes. And I think anyone who thinks 10 IP6 addresses in a DNS response is useful for anything is making a huge mistake, let alone cramming 20+ on a long domain name to smash the response limit, but I am fully prepared to be convinced I was wrong if you had a compelling use-case. Once upon a time, the DNS spec required requests come from port 53. This was terribly insecure, so many sysadmins patched their DNS server to not do this-- most servers at the time didn't care (including the incumbent), and the few that did were easy to convince of the error of their ways with a simple demonstration. Then one day, a DNS server became quite popular that didn't do this by default, and perhaps because the DNS spec was written by a company that sold consulting for their (buggy) DNS server, they used this exact argument: that it was wrong because the spec said it was wrong. They patched their server to reject these messages and encouraged users to block this traffic. That was wrong of them, and eventually, due to enough pressure they eventually caved. That's because the reality of good engineering doesn't give two fucks what the spec says. So what's your use-case?
- richardwhiuk 3y agoClient side load balancing.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> I've never really understood the underlying mentality that causes maintainers to bend over backwards to _not_ provide popular functionality like this. Probably trying to prevent feature creep; musl's home page describes it as > musl is lightweight, fast, simple, free, and strives to be correct in the sense of standards-conformance and safety And every single feature they add makes those things harder.