BIND 10 #1771: database datasource incorrectly rejects "on zonecut" glue

[BIND 10 Development]

#1771: database datasource incorrectly rejects "on zonecut" glue
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  vorner
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:         |             Milestone:
  defect                             |  Sprint-20120619
                   Priority:         |            Resolution:
  medium                             |             Sensitive:  0
                  Component:  data   |           Sub-Project:  DNS
  source                             |  Estimated Difficulty:  3
                   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:16 muks]:

 > > We already ensure that records on and under a zone cut are hidden at
 > > the caller side of getRRsets() (unless GLUE_OK is specified), and, as
 > > long as it's ensured I think it's too restrictive to reject all other
 > > cases.  IMO this layer should be flexible about what kind of data can
 > > be a glue (except for those already prohibited by the protocol), and
 > > let the higher layer such as auth::Query class make that decision.
 >
 > Removing that check (or replacing with NS+DNAME check) causes some tests
 to fail. I have to check why it does (and read the datasrc code more
 completely). But for now, for this bug, can we use the code in this branch
 which does not change behavior significantly?

 Hmm, I'm personally tempted to do it in a clean way from the beginning
 (assuming we basically agree on what would be cleaner) as I'm afraid
 it's quite likely to be left undone as a lower priority thing for a
 long period, resulting in keeping less understandable code.  But I'm
 just an observer in the review process for this ticket anyway, so I'd
 leave it to you two.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1771#comment:18>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development