add support for scaleway subdomains #1507
Conversation
dnsguru
added
DRAFT
|
This request eliminated many of the typical tickboxes present on a standard requestor form that are really not mandatory, so please replace them or make a new request and respond to them. Without this, the request would be closed as wontfix Also, some of the use cases listed may be in violation of the non-acceptance criteria - specifically the LB one or those that channel an IP address may require additional reviews. Others may also fall into the non-acceptance criteria, so this request may take additional time to process to ensure those reviews are possible. We are volunteer-based, so that timing is on an 'as available' basis. |
|
Hello, @dnsguru I'm still working on this PR to get it to the standard required for passing a review. I will notify you once I fill up all the required fields. I mostly opened to get started internally at scaleway and update the DNS zone with the right URL for the TXT record. |
|
@dnsguru thanks for your patience and for your time 🙏 , I've added back the tickboxes and completed the section. If you think some details are still missing do not hesitate to ask them. |
|
I have not had response from other maintainer volunteers related to the lb component being in compliance with (and not against our) guidelines and acceptance criteria, and really need to get that before proceeding. @remyleone If you'd like this to go through faster so that the lb discussion/approval does not hold the whole entry up, could you take the lb component out for now and submit that as an amendment? |
|
@dnsguru thanks a lot for your answer. Here's are two options: Option1: I remove the load balancer part and we can merge this pull request. The problem with this option is that it is suboptimal and it leaves us with something remaining to be done. Option2: You can open a Scaleway account, communicate me your organization number and I can provide you with a voucher so that you can test for free and in complete autonomy our products and gain confidence that this MR complies with your guidelines and acceptance criteria. If you have other options, I'm willing to negotiate and provide you all the assistance you need :) Worst case scenario we can stick with option 1. Having something merged is better than nothing at all. |
|
The other volunteer colleague who reviews IP stuff is on sabbatical leave with no ETA on return for review, but I am not sure that they'd have the extra volunteer cycles for option 2 (I certainly don't, but appreciate your suggestion) so we have to just wait if not Option 1 I was offering an opportunity at your choice between the lesser of two sub-optimals - which is still open |
|
Option 1 should be available now. I would appreciate a notification when your colleague is back and I can contribute the configuration for the lb product. :) |
Thanks, and sorry you had to pick the lesser of two evils here, but wanted to offer an option to have the majority of what you were looking for move forward.
So would I. We volunteer here, so I ask you to instead of enrolling me for this to keep this to-do on YOUR side, as I lack the cycles or a tool to track that for you and would not seek to fail given your importance |
|
@remyleone scalebook.scw.cloud does not have PSL TXT record and dedibox.fr is returning PR #684 Please fix those two and I'll have a look next volunteer cycle I have in the next few days The rest all validated (putting this here in the record) : |
|
@dnsguru It should be fixed |
|
@remyleone MERGED |
|
Hello @remyleone , it seems that some of the domains in your submission, which was merged into the Public Suffix List (PSL), may no longer be active based on the observable usage of subdomains. Examples (NXDOMAIN errors) If some of the services have been decommissioned and the domain is no longer linked to an active project, as outlined in your original request, please confirm whether it can be safely removed from the PSL. This will help prevent leaving unnecessary entries for PSL volunteers and future registrants, as requesters often "set and forget" and neglect to request the removal of their domains from the PSL when their project reaches its end of life (EOL). The PSL is a globally used resource, and it's important to understand that tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of devices and users incorporate the list. We aim to keep it as minimal as possible for those who truly need PSL inclusion. Projects that are smaller in scale, such as those without thousands of users or subdomains belonging to thousands of individual entities, will likely be ineligible for inclusion. If you no longer need your entry to remain on the PSL, please create a new pull request to remove it or reply here to confirm. If your project is still active and requires continued inclusion in the PSL, please reply at your earliest convenience. If we do not hear back from you for an extended period, your entry may be subject to removal. Additionally, ensure that the required Thank you. |
|
Hello @groundcat they are still used. Please keep them. |
|
@groundcat are you sure about your resolvers ? |
Reason for this Pull Request
(Link: about propogation/expectations)
Description of Organization
Organization Website: https://www.scaleway.com
I'm Rémy Léone, I work as an Engineering Manager and cloud developer advocate at Scaleway.
Scaleway is a cloud provider that offers different kinds of managed services for our customers.
Some of those services include DNS functionality: for instance, a DNS record will be added to a load balancer or an instance server.
Reason for PSL Inclusion
fr-par-1.baremetal.scw.cloud-
fr-par-2.baremetal.scw.cloud-
nl-ams1.baremetal.scw.cloud-
dedibox.fr11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111.fr-par-2.baremetal.scw.cloud-
sd-167474.dedibox.frfnc.fr-par.scw.cloud-
functions.fnc.fr-par.scw.cloudnodes.k8s.fr-par.scw.cloud-
nodes.k8s.nl-ams.scw.cloud-
nodes.k8s.pl-waw.scw.cloud-
k8s.scw.cloud-
k8s.fr-par.scw.cloud-
k8s.nl-ams.scw.cloud-
k8s.pl-waw.scw.cloud11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111.api.k8s.fr-par.scw.cloud-
*.11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111.nodes.k8s.fr-par.scw.cloudpriv.instances.scw.cloud-
pub.instances.scw.cloud11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111.pub.instances.scw.cloud11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111.priv.instances.scw.cloudlb.fr-par.scw.cloud-
lb.nl-ams.scw.cloud-
lb.pl-waw.scw.cloud51-158-57-55.lb.fr-par.scw.cloudsmartlabeling.scw.cloud-
scalebook.scw.cloud11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111.smartlabeling.scw.clouds3.fr-par.scw.cloud-
s3.nl-ams.scw.cloud-
s3.pl-waw.scw.cloud-
s3-website.fr-par.scw.cloud-
s3-website.nl-ams.scw.cloud-
s3-website.pl-waw.scw.cloudwhm.fr-par.scw.cloud-
whm.nl-ams.scw.cloudpf-1000.whm.fr-par.scw.cloud-
pf-1001.whm.fr-par.scw.cloud-
ns1.whm.fr-par.scw.cloud-
ns2.whm.fr-par.scw.cloudWe tried in the past to be included: #684
DNS Verification via dig
make test
I've run the test using:
The tests run fine.