Conversation
5531584 to
b2bda3d
Compare
matsduf
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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