BIND 10 #626: unexpected response from bind10 (SERVFAIL from auth server) (hotcache issue)

[BIND 10 Development]

#626: unexpected response from bind10 (SERVFAIL from auth server) (hotcache
issue)
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  shane    |                Owner:  jinmei
                     Type:  defect   |               Status:  reviewing
                 Priority:           |            Milestone:  A-Team-
  critical                           |  Sprint-20110316
                Component:           |           Resolution:
  b10-auth                           |            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:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:13 jinmei]:
 > Replying to [comment:12 vorner]:
 > > But I have a problem understanding what exactly was the problem and
 how this can possibly fix it. How is referral related to cached SOA? What
 did I overlook? Could you explain it little bit, please?
 >
 > The problem is this: when SOA is explicitly queried the data source API
 > returns "REFERRAL" flag (which means the owner name has an NS, which
 > is always the case for the owner name (=zone apex) of SOA as long as
 > the zone is validly configured).  In this case hasDelegation() checks
 > if the NS is really a delegation, excluding the zone apex, so it's not
 > confused.

 OK, it seems to make sense. I tend to agree this part of code probably
 needs some attention in future.

 > > And, as this was originaly reported by someone external to the
 > > project, should we wait for his confirmation as well?
 >
 > Holding merge until we get confirmation?  In this case since we can
 > reproduce the problem and should be quite confident about the cause
 > and fix, I don't think we have to wait.  But we should notify the
 > original reporter about the fix when we merge the fix to master.

 No, I don't want to wait with merge. I only asked if we want to wait with
 closing the ticket (which is different matter than merging). But we might
 as well close it and let it be reopened in case it doesn't work.

 Anyway, as I was saying, this can be merged.

 Thanks

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/626#comment:15>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development