Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ENSIP-6 Improvements #133

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

ENSIP-6 Improvements #133

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

buffrr
Copy link

@buffrr buffrr commented Mar 20, 2023

This PR updates the status of ENSIP-6 from Stagnant to Draft and enhances compatibility with DNS without requiring changes to the DNS resolver profile. Instead, it establishes a better convention for translating ENS nodes and record sets to DNS.

The main improvement involves treating record sets as part of the top-level domain zone which may work better for .eth and enables several useful features:

  • Nodes can delegate to a standard nameserver without coordinating with parent nodes by simply adding an NS record set.
  • DNSSEC support is enabled through the use of DS record sets, effectively turning DNS into a secure layer 2 solution.
  • CNAMEs can be added at the domain level, since domains are not at the zone apex (e.g., (nick.eth, nick.eth, CNAME)).
  • Establishes a clearer relationship between record sets and ENS nodes.

This approach makes it theoretically possible to export all ENS nodes implementing this ENSIP into a DNS-compliant zone that can be consumed by standard DNS software with support for zone transfers ... etc.

There are other ways to do this, most come with their own trade-offs. This proposal does not require changing any contracts, but instead provides a clearer convention for those wanting to build DNS integrations for ENS but of course I'm open to other ideas. Thanks!

@lucemans lucemans marked this pull request as draft June 11, 2024 12:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants