-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update Basic01 #1212
Update Basic01 #1212
Conversation
5531584
to
b2bda3d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test case requires several test zones.
B01_INCONSISTENT_DELEGATION is not implemented. I do not feel that all logic in the test case is implemented. |
As discussed, I have split this PR in two: DNAME implementation is now done in #1213, while this PR deals with the implementation update of Basic01. Note that commit 3bfc375 is a necessary dependency for this PR. It relates to #1213, which will have to be merged first before this PR. Please ignore it and only review subsequent commits in this PR. |
Indeed, this first draft was a minimal implementation, because most of the logic in new Basic01 was already done in Engine::Recursor and I wanted to avoid redundancy. But it is not enough if we want to have a fully compliant implementation so I will provide an update. |
For BASIC01 no advance DNAME functions are needed. The only test that is required is if a DNAME record with Child Zone as owner name is present in the answer section in the response to a DNAME query for Child Zone. The target is to be captured but not followed. There must not be more than one DNAME record in a node (as with CNAME), and for BASIC01 I think we can ignore multiple DNAME records. I think it is unlikely that there is a case when multiple DNAME record with the same owner name are included. Should we still capture the case? Then we should update the test case and create a new message for that. |
@matsduf This implementation is now ready for review and should be fully compliant to the specification. |
I have started to review. |
Update to latest specification (zonemaster/zonemaster#1082)
@matsduf I have rebased on latest develop, as well as fixed minor things, could you re-approve? |
Purpose
This PR proposes an update of Basic01 to the latest specification (zonemaster/zonemaster#1082).
TBD:
Context
Fixes #568
Changes
How to test this PR