BIND 10 #598: Resolver DO bit, forwarder pass DO bit

[BIND 10 Development]

#598: Resolver DO bit, forwarder pass DO bit
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  jreed    |                Owner:  zhanglikun
                     Type:  defect   |               Status:  reviewing
                 Priority:  major    |            Milestone:
                Component:           |  Sprint-20110419
  resolver                           |           Resolution:
                 Keywords:           |            Sensitive:  0
Estimated Number of Hours:  0.0      |  Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                Billable?:  1        |          Total Hours:  0
                Internal?:  0        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => zhanglikun


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:11 zhanglikun]:
 > I would like to create another ticket to support truncation(I don't know
 if we has supported the truncation in the normal recursive query, it not ,
 the new ticket will cover it also).

 OK, makes sense.

 > > The changelog is OK regarding the code, but I'm not sure if
 implementing the simplest forwarder is in scope of this ticket. Not that
 I'd propose removing the code, if it leads towards what we want, of
 course.
 >
 > Well, I have chatted this with jelte and shane on jabber room, our final
 desision is do the simplest forwarder first. I would like to change the
 scope of this ticket to do it, or we can close this ticket and create a
 new ticket for implementing a simplest forwarder, what's your opinion?

 Well, the code is already written, so there's no point in not merging it.
 I just wanted to point out that by extending the ticket, you added a work
 to current sprint that wasn't planned in it, you could have used your time
 to implement something planned. That's not a serious problem, of course,
 just something to be careful about.

 > > Anyway, from the older comments, I might be little bit unclear, I
 meant changing RunningQuery→UpstreamQuery and leaving ForwardQuery as it
 is (since ForwardQuery was really good name, but the RunningQuery isn't
 and UpstreamQuery is mostly about resolver I believe).
 >
 > I would like to keep RunningQuery to decrease the workload when merging,
 there is a ticket related with refactoring RecursiveQuery, I would like to
 do the name change in that ticket.

 ACK

 > Seems they have little shared code now.

 OK. Then, go ahead an merge.

 With regards

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/598#comment:12>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development