BIND 10 #1688: duplicate RR suprression in auth::Query

[BIND 10 Development]

#1688: duplicate RR suprression in auth::Query
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:
  jinmei                             |                Status:  new
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:  Next-Sprint-
                   Priority:  major  |  Proposed
                  Component:         |            Resolution:
  b10-auth                           |             Sensitive:  0
                   Keywords:         |           Sub-Project:  DNS
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |  Estimated Difficulty:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |           Total Hours:  0
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Description changed by jinmei:

Old description:

> There are several cases where an answer from b10-auth can have
> duplicate RRs (sometimes in the same section, sometimes over
> multiple sections).  We catch and suppress the possible duplicates
> separately (avoid adding duplicate A/AAAA in answer and additional,
> avoid adding duplicate NSECs) and sometimes just ignore such cases.
>
> It would be better to unify such processing.  Also, since duplicate
> check is generally expensive (the generic way requires name
> comparison), it would also be nicer if we take into account possible
> further optimization (but that would be beyond the scope of this
> ticket).
>
> See also the review discussion in #1583.

New description:

 There are several cases where an answer from b10-auth can have
 duplicate RRs (sometimes in the same section, sometimes over
 multiple sections).  We catch and suppress the possible duplicates
 separately (avoid adding duplicate A/AAAA in answer and additional,
 avoid adding duplicate NSECs) and sometimes just ignore such cases.

 It would be better to unify such processing.  Also, since duplicate
 check is generally expensive (the generic way requires name
 comparison), it would also be nicer if we take into account possible
 further optimization (but that would be beyond the scope of this
 ticket).

 See also the review discussion in #1583.

 It's probably easier to do this ticket after #1747 and #1748.

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1688#comment:3>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development