BIND 10 #505: DNAME Implementation

[BIND 10 Development]

#505: DNAME Implementation
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  stephen  |                Owner:  jinmei
                     Type:           |               Status:  reviewing
  enhancement                        |            Milestone:  A-Team-
                 Priority:  major    |  Sprint-20110209
                Component:           |           Resolution:
  b10-auth                           |            Sensitive:  0
                 Keywords:           |  Add Hours to Ticket:  0
Estimated Number of Hours:  2.0      |          Total Hours:  0
                Billable?:  1        |
                Internal?:  0        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:8 vorner]:

 > However, I wasn't sure if I should include the NS records in authority
 section. I reasoned that as I send some authoritative data (the DNAME
 record), I should provide them. However, the RFC says I should exit, which
 could indicate the authority section should be empty. Do you have any
 opinion on that?

 I've not looked into the relevant part of RFC, but BIND 9, NSD, and
 BIND 10's sqlite3-based query logic all skip including NS (and
 corresponding additional) RRs if the answer is DNAME.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/505#comment:9>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development