BIND 10 #2185: RR type implementation: TLSA

[BIND 10 Development]

#2185: RR type implementation: TLSA
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            Reporter:  shane         |                        Owner:  muks
                Type:  enhancement   |                       Status:
            Priority:  high          |  reviewing
           Component:  libdns++      |                    Milestone:
            Keywords:                |  bind10-1.2-release-freeze
           Sensitive:  0             |                   Resolution:
         Sub-Project:  DNS           |                 CVSS Scoring:
Estimated Difficulty:  5             |              Defect Severity:  N/A
         Total Hours:  0             |  Feature Depending on Ticket:
                                     |          Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                                     |                    Internal?:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by muks):

 Hi Paul

 Replying to [comment:5 pselkirk]:
 > On a quick read through the RFC, I don't see where it is implied that
 the Certificate Association Data field could be empty, or how it might be
 useful or meaningful.

 This is mentioned in comment:1. It is not implied both ways, so we take a
 permissive stance. We usually are not strict about the range of values an
 RDATA field can take. If we have a single-octet field for example and only
 values 1 and 2 are currently specified (used), we allow all values
 usually.

 I don't know how empty data could be useful for particular values of other
 RDATA fields. But this is a valid point. I'll ask about this and reply on
 this ticket.

 > That aside, I find nothing to object to here, except to note that
 {{{auto_ptr}}} is officially deprecated as of C++11, but we have a number
 of other Rdata classes that use it in exactly the same way.

 Nod. Deprecation of `auto_ptr` was mentioned in the "High Integrity C++"
 document that Shane shared sometime back (http://www.codingstandard.com/).
 But note that it's not possible to use `shared_ptr` in the RDATA class
 itself for managing the pimpl as it is opaque in that public scope (also
 mentioned in the ticket linked from comment:2). We also cannot currently
 use any C++11 specific features.

 Do you have any suggestions to replace `auto_ptr` (short of explicit
 memory management using `delete`)? See #3298.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2185#comment:6>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development