Coverage remained the same at 96.897% when pulling 66e39a9 on feat/dnsaddr into f6b52a1 on master.

Coverage remained the same at 96.897% when pulling 5890edc on feat/dnsaddr into f6b52a1 on master.

Why this change @lgierth @whyrusleeping ??

Oh I see now what you meant @dryajov. The /dns in the protocol codes table is definitely correct as it is.

@diasdavid the context is that @dryajov noticed that there's /dnsaddr in go-ipfs, but not in js-ipfs, and that there's /dns in js-ipfs but not anywhere else.

I think I'd propose:

• Remove /dns -- we haven't defined /dns, the only thing we've done for it is reserve its protocol code in the table.
• Add /dnsaddrand make it a "resolvable" protocol. You will encounter /dnsaddr addresses and it'd be good to regard them as valid.

I see that Multiaddr.resolve() doesn't really do anything yet. Maybe go-multiaddr-dns can serve as inspiration.

@lgierth I'm not understanding what is the real difference between /dns and /dnsaddr other than it seems that go-ipfs shipped /dnsaddr in the latest version, although it was not present on the table.

I'm not understanding what /dns is supposed to do -- we never defined what it'd do. We only defined /dns4 and /dns6 (and /dnsaddr)

Ack. Seems I never got the packet about /dnsaddr but yeah I remember we being unsure about /dns.

Looks good to me know. Merging and releasing. Thanks @lgierth and @dryajov :)