[dfc]

After reading the title I was a little surprised when I skimmed the documentation. It seems like a better title would be:

"Luadns, managed DNS with Git and Lua scriptable front-end"

It seems like tinydns is your back-end. Which in my opinion is nothing to be ashamed of. When I thought the service was a new dns server written in Lua I was less intrigued. There are a ton of pitfalls when writing your own dns daemon, tinydns is a good choice.

What are you going to do when dnssec becomes a requirement?

[vitalie]

Thank you for your suggestions!

We are trying to avoid reinventing the wheel. :) TinyDNS served me well more than 10 years, I like the design of this piece of software ( although it needs 2 pairs of glasses to read it :) ), so it was a natural choice.

To provide IPv6 and DNSSEC support we'll provide another set of name servers with NSD/PowerDNS as we designed Luadns with flexibility in mind (it's already 100% compatible with PowerDNS).

[dfc]

That's awesome. Do you mention that on your site? I don't remeber seeing it but I might have not looked for ipv6/dnssec after seeing tinydns.

Knowing the path forward includes ipv6/dnssec definitely makes me more willing to signup...

[jbarham]

Who can make DNSSEC a requirement? How will it be enforced?

[dfc]

Any customer can make DNSSEC a requirement for adoption. Bob or Alice simply choose a different provider to enforce their requirement.

From a post downthread it is clear that the luadns team is well aware of how they will move forward in light of the tinydns feature set.