Skip to content

feat: add HTTPS record type (RFC 9460) support#129

Merged
poyrazK merged 6 commits intomainfrom
release/https-record-support
May 2, 2026
Merged

feat: add HTTPS record type (RFC 9460) support#129
poyrazK merged 6 commits intomainfrom
release/https-record-support

Conversation

@poyrazK
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@poyrazK poyrazK commented May 2, 2026

Summary

  • Add HTTPS record type (RFC 9460) support with full SVCB parameter handling
  • HTTPS records provide service binding hints for HTTP-aware clients
  • Supports: priority, target, alpn, port, ipv4hint, ipv6hint, echconfig, no-default
  • AliasMode (priority 0) works like CNAME for zone apex

Changes

  • core/domain: Added TypeHTTPS constant and HTTPS fields to Record struct
  • packet: Added HTTPS QueryType (65), DNSRecord HTTPS fields, Read/Write wire format
  • repository: Added HTTPS conversion between domain and wire format
  • server: Added HTTPS to queryTypeToRecordType mapping
  • docs: ADR 0011 explaining design decisions and RFC 9460 compliance
  • test: 10 test cases covering all SVCB params, round-trip, and edge cases

RFC References

Test plan

  • go build ./... passes
  • go test -short ./... passes
  • go test -v -run HTTPS ./internal/dns/packet/... - 10 tests pass

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented May 2, 2026

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@poyrazK has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 32 minutes and 41 seconds before requesting another review.

To keep reviews running without waiting, you can enable usage-based add-on for your organization. This allows additional reviews beyond the hourly cap. Account admins can enable it under billing.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: dde6979c-da9d-4b75-9ec5-72760860e98d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e140584 and 8042561.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)
  • README.md
  • docs/decisions/0011-https-record-support.md
  • features.md
  • internal/adapters/repository/postgres.go
  • internal/core/domain/dns.go
  • internal/dns/packet/https_test.go
  • internal/dns/packet/packet.go
  • internal/dns/server/server.go
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch release/https-record-support

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
Review rate limit: 0/1 reviews remaining, refill in 32 minutes and 41 seconds.

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

poyrazK added 2 commits May 2, 2026 16:06
- Fix ALPN parsing to split comma-separated values per RFC 9460 Section 2.2
- Fix ALPN writing to emit as single comma-separated param (not multiple)
- Add HTTPSNoDefault field to domain Record and repository conversions
- Add IP hint length validation (error if not multiple of 4/16)
- Enforce AliasMode (priority 0) must not have SVCB params
The paramsSize calculation was unused - RDLENGTH is calculated after
writing, not pre-calculated. Also use variadic append for ALPN split.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

@poyrazK poyrazK left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's okay to merge

@poyrazK poyrazK merged commit df6cdbe into main May 2, 2026
11 checks passed
@poyrazK poyrazK review requested due to automatic review settings May 2, 2026 13:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant