BIND 10 #504: CNAME Implementation

[BIND 10 Development]

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

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:8 jinmei]:
 > Replying to [comment:7 vorner]:
 > >  * 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.

 Well, at some point they would be put together and at that point they
 would throw an exception.

 > 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.

 Did you create the ticket or should I?

 > >  * 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.

 Thanks. It seems OK now, so merge, please.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/504#comment:11>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development