BIND 10 #1585: auth::Query NSEC3 support: Unsigned referrals case

[BIND 10 Development]

#1585: auth::Query NSEC3 support: Unsigned referrals case
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jinmei
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:  major  |  Sprint-20120221
                  Component:         |            Resolution:
  b10-auth                           |             Sensitive:  0
                   Keywords:         |           Sub-Project:  DNS
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |  Estimated Difficulty:  4
Feature Depending on Ticket:  NSEC3  |           Total Hours:  0
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:9 vorner]:

 Thanks for the review.

 > The code itself looks good, but there are problems with interaction with
 other branches I think.
 >
 > I'd like to point out that the addNXRRsetProof method in master handles
 both NSEC and NSEC3 now, so your change would break it when merging. So I
 think this should be moved there.

 > And I agree with jelte, I just reviewed the #1582 and the code looks
 suspiciously almost the same, it should be unified somehow.

 I already noticed the possibility of unification while I worked on
 #1583.  I chose to separate these cases for the moment, because they
 were slightly different from each other.  I think it's better to
 postpone the unification until we complete all protocol tickets.  I
 expect at that point we can decide what's the best way to extract the
 most common pattern to unify them.  There's a dedicated cleanup ticket
 for that purpose (#1587).

 Now that #1582 has been merged to master, I've merged the latest
 master to this branch, just fixing conflicts in a straightforward
 manner.  Could you check the conflict resolution?

 If you want, I can further unify the code within this branch, but for
 the above reason I'd personally defer it to #1587, that is, we'll have
 a better idea of how to unify them once we get all necessary pieces.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1585#comment:11>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development