3 ms·
Just by looking at the handler, it is not RFC compliant. I do not see SOA record being generated properly nor do I see a proper handling of nxdomain vs nodatae
by plagiat0r 3y ago
Just by looking at the handler, it is not RFC compliant. I do not see SOA record being generated properly nor do I see a proper handling of nxdomain vs nodatae responses.
See RFC 2308.
- plagiat0r 3y agoWhen looking more closely at the code, this violates RFC in multiple ways, no SOA record, answers for NS are catch-all by qtype, resolve() doesn't modify authority or additional sections, they're not implemented. ANY qtype not implemented. I'm not a fan of nodata responses with empty authority, same as nxdomain responses. Missing TCP listener. While not required by any RFC, some ccTLD Registries enforce udp+tcp before delegating, like .de
- plagiat0r 3y agoAlso, for "www' you either return address records or cname, never both. This is a violation of RFC...