Commit 47dc887d authored by Michal 'vorner' Vaner's avatar Michal 'vorner' Vaner
Browse files

[trac534] Some references to RFC

parent 83904ae5
......@@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ struct MemoryZone::MemoryZoneImpl {
/*
* Similar with DNAME, but it must not coexist only with NS and only in
* non-apex domains.
* RFC 2672 section 3 mentions that it is implied from it and RFC 2181
*/
if (rrset->getName() != origin_ &&
// Adding DNAME, NS already there
......@@ -216,13 +217,19 @@ struct MemoryZone::MemoryZoneImpl {
// We need to look for DNAME first, there's allowed case where
// DNAME and NS coexist in the apex. DNAME is the one to notice,
// the NS is authoritative, not delegation
// the NS is authoritative, not delegation (corner case explicitly
// allowed by section 3 of 2672)
const Domain::const_iterator foundDNAME(node.getData()->find(
RRType::DNAME()));
if (foundDNAME != node.getData()->end()) {
state->dname_node_ = &node;
state->rrset_ = foundDNAME->second;
// No more processing below the DNAME
// No more processing below the DNAME (RFC 2672, section 3
// forbids anything to exist below it, so there's no need
// to actually search for it). This is strictly speaking
// a different way than described in 4.1 of that RFC,
// but because of the assumption in section 3, it has the
// same behaviour.
return true;
}
......
Supports Markdown
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment