'inline-signing' might go away and be replaced by dnssec-policy ?

[Tom]

On 10/26/22 10:19, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> Thanks for this. It probably should be removed from the docs at this point.
> 
> When introducing dnssec-policy, my goal was to reduce the dozens of 
> DNSSEC related configuration options that are scattered throughout 
> named.conf and contain them in one stanza. But some options are more 
> difficult to be replaced than others.
> 
> On 24-10-2022 18:16, PGNet Dev wrote:
>> i've read this comment
>>
>>> 'inline-signing' might go away and be replaced by dnssec-policy
>>
>> now a few times, in posts and in docs
>>
>> currently, WITH 'dnssec-policy' signing enabled & in-use, i've
>>
>>      zone "example.com" IN {
>>          type master; file "namedb/primary/example.com.zone";
>>          dnssec-policy "test";
>>          inline-signing yes;
>>          ...
>>
>> the 'inline-signing yes;' is needed IN ADDITION to 'dnssec-policy' in 
>> order to _not_ overwrite original zone files/data on signing.  e.g., 
>> with the config above
>>
>>      cd namedb/primary/
>>      ls -1 *example*
>>          example.com.zone          <==== THIS is the original, 
>> unsigned zone data
>>          example.com.zone.jbk
>>          example.com.zone.jnl
>>          example.com.zone.signed   <==== THIS is the signing-generated 
>> zone data, which gets propagated
>>          example.com.zone.signed.jnl
>>
>> without it, the original "example.com.zone" is overwritten with signed 
>> data.
>>
>> is there already config in, or planned for, 'dnssec-policy' that 
>> preserves that separate-file functionality, preserving the original?
> 
> There are two ways of DNSSEC maintenance in BIND. One is the 
> inline-signing approach, that preserves the original zone file. The 
> other is to apply the changes directly to the zone (and zone file) and 
> requires the zone to allow dynamic updates.
> 
> Since the latest release dnssec-policy requires either inline-signing to 
> be set to yes, or allow dynamic updates.
> 
> I am thinking of adding inline-signing to dnssec-policy, do you think 
> that would that be useful?

Matthijs,

Yes, from my point of view, that would surely be useful. I would very 
much welcome a configuration option within the dnssec-policy-statement, 
to globally enable inline-signing for all dnssec-signed zones.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Matthijs