What is the difference between this and libdns/dnsupdate

[conblem]

Hello everybody I stumbled upon this library and the libdns/dnsupdate library.
Both seem to be using RFC 2136 for DNS updates it is unclear to me what the distinction is between these libraries.
One thing I found is that only this library has caddy-dns integration, so maybe thats it?

Cheers

[mholt]

Good question, I don't think I realized they were the same. 😅 From the dnsupdate package:

DNS AXFR is used to list DNS records. DNS UPDATE is used to append, set and delete records.

So maybe that's one difference? I don't know much about these RFCs though so maybe the package author(s) can chime in. /cc @emersion

[emersion]

Oh my. I can't believe I missed this repo... Yes, it does sound that the two repos achieve the exact same thing. (This repo uses AXFR to fetch records as well.)

[mholt]

I'm totally sorry for not noticing it either. I had always heard "rfc 2136" but never really thought of it as "DNS UPDATE" -- but of course it's the same thing 🤦‍♂️

Would you be interested in merging/consolidating the two repos? I could add both of you as maintainers to this one, for instance.

[rahilarious]

Would you be interested in merging/consolidating the two repos? I could add both of you as maintainers to this one, for instance.

it'd be great to merge repos. @emersion ?

[emersion]

We'd need to figure out the differences and make patches to one fork or the other to fix bugs or missing features. Some quick notes:

• dnsupdate doesn't support auth keys.
• rfc2136 doesn't populate the ID field of records.
• rfc2136 uses reflect, which I find a bit fragile/surprising.

[mholt]

Note that libdns is going to be formalizing its APIs and semantics here in an upcoming 1.0 beta release that should make some things easier but also a little different. (I'll update this with a link to the PR when I'm back at my computer)

[emersion]

I'm guessing this is libdns/libdns#153? Very nice to see the API improved with well-defined semantics and better type safety!

[mholt]

Yep! I've been wanting to do it for a while but it just takes some time to gain real world experience first.

[gucci-on-fleek]

@emersion

• rfc2136 doesn't populate the ID field of records.

That will be "fixed" in libdns/libdns#153 (which removes the ID field entirely).

• rfc2136 uses reflect, which I find a bit fragile/surprising.

I've removed that in my fork for libdns v1.0. But to be fair, I was the one who added reflect in the first place.