From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A4E077BA6
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:19:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 73574128F7
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:18:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DA718128E6
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:18:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A6E16462A5
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:18:28 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:18:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1069728764.1442.1619633901557@webmail.proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev9
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.387 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v2 backup 02/27] add dns alias schema
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:19:00 -0000

So we should call it SCOPED_DNS_NAME, and require the underscore at start?

> On 04/28/2021 6:34 PM Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 28.04.21 18:10, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > Seems DNS names in general are totally unrestricted and
> > may contain arbitrary binary data:
> > 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2181#section-11
> > 
> > Only host names and url are restricted.
> > 
> > ?!
> 
> FYI, from a off-list message from Wolfgang:
> 
> >> and why now only allow as first one?
> > mostly because that's what we did in PVE and because using underscores
> > anywhere else is silly ;-)
> > it's used for scoping, there was even an RFC draft but it's expired and only
> > marked as "best current practice" whatever that's worth:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-07.html#rfc.section.1.1
> > so basically: we used to not allow underscores, people do use leading
> > underscores for scoping, and we use it particularly for ACME aliases...
> 
> There was some confusion with which ALIAS you meant, as there's a not really
> used DNS record type named "ALIAS" too (which is unrelated to that one here).