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-20110223
                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        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:21 jinmei]:
 > I don't have a strong opinion, but if you are okay with the idea of
 > having RdataIterator throw an exception, I'm okay with keeping the
 > assert() for now while creating a separate ticket for it.  Once we
 > revise RdataIterator, if a buggy data source passes an empty DNAME, it
 > will result in an exception and result in SERVFAIL, which should be
 > okay.

 OK, I'm going to create the ticket.

 >   What's the original implementation?  Does this mean this test would
 >   have failed before #505?  Or some earlier version of #505?  Maybe we
 >   can say something like: "Type ANY queries are sometimes handled as a
 >   special case, but they shouldn't be special in DNAME handling.  So
 >   we explicitly test it to see if it's handled like any other types of
 >   queries".

 The original implementation was my first attempt at this task. I found the
 bug before I put it to review, but added the check so it is not repeated.
 Anyway, I changed it as you suggest.

 >  - I'd add another type of test for "LongDNAME": test the case where
 >    the resulting target has the max length to check we don't
 >    accidentally reject the valid case.

 OK, added.

 >  - I've made some minor (mostly editorial changes) to the branch.
 >    Please check the diff.

 Yes, they seem OK.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/505#comment:23>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development