BIND 10 #2124: RFC 6594 for SSHFP
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Mon Jul 23 18:18:50 UTC 2012
#2124: RFC 6594 for SSHFP
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: jinmei
vorner | Status: reviewing
Type: | Milestone:
defect | Sprint-20120731
Priority: | Resolution:
medium | Sensitive: 0
Component: | Sub-Project: DNS
libdns++ | Estimated Difficulty: 2
Keywords: | Total Hours: 0
Defect Severity: N/A |
Feature Depending on Ticket: |
Add Hours to Ticket: 0 |
Internal?: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jinmei):
Replying to [comment:13 muks]:
I don't think we should reject 0 for algorithm and type. The RFC
doesn't require it, and BIND 9 (which we generally try to be
compatible with if there's specific reason not to do so) doesn't
reject them.
> > - I'd add tests for the "from wire" cases (against some uncommon
> > algorithms/types)
>
> Done. :)
Probably beyond the scope of this task, but now that you've deleted
"TBD": we still need some more tests, e.g., short data.
Also, you don't necessarily have to explicitly specify parameters of
test data if you simply use the default values. From a quick look you
can omit many of them.
> > - We need a changelog for this fix.
>
> How does this look:
> {{{
> +XXX. [bug] muks
> + SSHFP's algorithm and fingerprint type checks have been relaxed
> + such that they will accept any values in [1,255]. This is so
that
> + future algorithm and fingerprint types are accomodated.
> + (Trac #2124, git ...)
> +
> }}}
Looks okay, except that it would need to be adjusted if we allow
values of 0.
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2124#comment:14>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list