BIND 10 #1580: auth::Query NSEC3 support: Name Error case

[BIND 10 Development]

#1580: auth::Query NSEC3 support: Name Error 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:12 kevin_tes]:
 > Changed has been done,please review.

 - Some comments still seem incorrect, and some seem redundant
   (header part comments seem to repeat what's commented in the method
   body).
 - On second thought, I'd (at least for now) let Message::addRRset()
   throw if the next proof is null.  As we discussed in the biweekly
   call, we should probably keep the query logic simple for bogus
   return values due to broken data source implementation as long as it
   doesn't crash.
 - Also as we discussed, duplicate name check is probably better
   deferred to later cleanup.
 - The case of wildcard NSEC3 is a matching NSEC3 should be checked and
   rejected (and tested)

 Normally I give the branch back to the original author with comments
 (and I don't want to "steal" other's work), but since the deadline is
 coming, I've directly committed suggested changes to these points.
 Before doing that, I first merged master to the branch and resolved
 conflicts.  That would make the final merge smoother.  The latest
 commit of mine is not related to the above points, and is rather
 cleanup.  I've provided some detailed commit logs to explain the
 intent of each change.

 If you agree with the comments above and the changes, please simply
 merge it to master.  Of course, you may not agree with some of them or
 may find a bug in it.  In that case please continue the discussion.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1580#comment:13>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development