BIND 10 #504: CNAME Implementation
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Wed Jan 19 19:11:29 UTC 2011
#504: CNAME Implementation
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: stephen | Owner: jinmei
Type: | Status: reviewing
enhancement | Milestone: A-Team-
Priority: major | Sprint-20110126
Component: data | Resolution:
source | Sensitive: 0
Keywords: | Add Hours to Ticket: 0
Estimated Number of Hours: 5.0 | Total Hours: 0
Billable?: 1 |
Internal?: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jinmei):
Replying to [comment:7 vorner]:
> Two things:
> * Is the MemoryZone the right place to check for singleton RRs? If we
really want to check that, then I guess RRset itself should throw in that
case, this is not specific to memory zones.
One difficulty is that we may not always be able to detect violation of
singleton in the form of a single RRset. In general, a zone can be given
two RRs of the same name and of a single type from different RRsets, so we
need to do something within zones anyway.
Whether or not we should do this check at the level of RRset::addRdata()
is a different question, and it's probably a good idea. I think it's a
matter of separate ticket/task, though.
> * Is the different logic under a zone cut needed? I don't see why it
should be different and maybe it would be simpler to just act the same way
every time.
Good question. This behavior was copied from BIND 9, and I actually
wondered about the rationale of it. At least I don't know a standard
that specifies this behavior. I'll ask BIND 9 designers/developers about
the intent, but for now I guess it's okay to remove this special case
for simplicity.
--
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/504#comment:8>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list