Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 2, 2020. It is now read-only.

docs: add section about DNSLink via Subdomain #110

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 23, 2018
Merged

docs: add section about DNSLink via Subdomain #110

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 23, 2018

Conversation

lidel
Copy link
Contributor

@lidel lidel commented Aug 23, 2018

This PR updates /guides/concepts/dnslink:

  • adds a short section about "Publish via _dnslink subdomain"
  • fixes broken link to IPNS page

_dnslink.docs.ipfs.io. 34 IN TXT "dnslink=/ipfs/QmeveuwF5wWBSgUXLG6p1oxF3GKkgjEnhA6AAwHUoVsx6E"
```

<!-- Not sure if IPNS is fast enough to mention here
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does it resolve pretty reliably before your browser times out yet? That might be a better way to decide whether it’s worth discussing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@lidel lidel Aug 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AFAIK it is hit or miss right now. That is why I commented out this section, so it won't get rendered.
We can revisit it when IPNS improves enough.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Mr0grog Mr0grog Aug 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense. 👍

Copy link
Collaborator

@Mr0grog Mr0grog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was about to merge this morning and realized I had one more burning question here: what’s the use case for _dnslink.whatever.com instead of just whatever.com?

Noted a few other minor nits inline while I was looking, but those are also minor things I can just fix while merging.

@@ -5,9 +5,16 @@ menu:
parent: concepts
---

DNSLink uses DNS records to map a domain name (like `ipfs.io`) to an IPFS address. Because you can edit your DNS records, you can use them to always point to the latest version of an object in IPFS (remember that an IPFS object’s address changes if you modify the object). Because DNSLink uses DNS records, the names it produces are also usually easy to type and read.
### Overview
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you remove this header? See #105 (comment) for more. I should probably write up a doc about this stuff :\


### Publish via Subdomain

It is possible to publish DNSLink using a special subdomain named `_dnslink`.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you describe a use case for this? I didn’t know it existed and I’m wondering why you’d want to do this instead just adding another TXT record directly on the domain you want to use.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added a paragraph with generic use case. Basically its useful when you want to delegate control over DNSLink without allowing for changes to anything else.

FYI there is another one, but it is specific to a vendor and probably should not land in the doc: Historically we had a bug where dnsimple automatically added a TXT record "this is an ALIAS record" in some setups, but instead of making a new TXT record they overrode existing TXT record holding the dnslink, effectively breaking it. Using subdomain works around that as well.

because TXT record exists for `_dnslink.docs.ipfs.io`:

```
dig +noall +answer TXT _dnslink.docs.ipfs.io
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add a $ or > at the start of this line to show it’s input at the prompt and not output!

_dnslink.docs.ipfs.io. 34 IN TXT "dnslink=/ipfs/QmeveuwF5wWBSgUXLG6p1oxF3GKkgjEnhA6AAwHUoVsx6E"
```

<!-- Not sure if IPNS is fast enough to mention here
Copy link
Collaborator

@Mr0grog Mr0grog Aug 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense. 👍

@lidel
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidel commented Aug 23, 2018

@Mr0grog applied changes suggested in your review, check again :)


It is possible to publish DNSLink using a special subdomain named `_dnslink`.

This is useful when one wants to improve security of automated setup or
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Extra minor: since the rest of this doc is written in the second person (it addresses the reader as “you,” we should stick with that here :)

@Mr0grog
Copy link
Collaborator

Mr0grog commented Aug 23, 2018

@lidel Can you rewrite your commits to include a signoff? Totally forgot to mention that last time, sorry.

After that, I’m going to make just a couple grammar tweaks, but this looks great otherwise. Thanks! ❤️

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Marcin Rataj <lidel@lidel.org>
@lidel
Copy link
Contributor Author

lidel commented Aug 23, 2018

@Mr0grog added signoff and squashed into a single commit 👍
Feel free to apply any changes you feel are needed, my writing skills are limited :)

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Rob Brackett <rob@robbrackett.com>
@Mr0grog
Copy link
Collaborator

Mr0grog commented Aug 23, 2018

Beautiful, thanks!

Feel free to apply any changes you feel are needed, my writing skills are limited

That’s at least one of the things I’m here for, no worries ;)

@Mr0grog Mr0grog merged commit bef3dfa into ipfs-inactive:master Aug 23, 2018
@lidel lidel deleted the add-dnslink-via-subdomain branch August 23, 2018 22:33
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants