Commit 12807b1d authored by Mukund Sivaraman's avatar Mukund Sivaraman
Browse files

[2435] Make minor documentation updates

parent b22bc32b
......@@ -62,18 +62,18 @@ public:
/// refined to clarify this point in the future, and perhaps, provide
/// additional API for these RRType.
///
/// As for RRSIG, there are such fundamental open questions. For
/// example, it's not clear whether we want to return all RRSIGs
/// of the given name covering any RR types (in which case, we
/// need to figure out how), or we need to extend the interface so
/// we can specify the covered. A specific derived implementation
/// may return something if type RRSIG is specified, but this is
/// not specified here at the base class level, i.e., for RRSIGs
/// the behavior is undefined.
/// As for RRSIG, there are some fundamental open questions. For
/// example, it's not clear whether we want to return all RRSIGs of
/// the given name covering any RR types (in which case, we need to
/// figure out how), or we need to extend the interface so we can
/// specify the covered type. A specific derived implementation may
/// return something if type RRSIG is specified, but this is not
/// specified here at the base class level. So, for RRSIGs the
/// behavior should be assumed as undefined.
///
/// As for NSEC3, it's not clear whether owner names (which included
/// hashed labels) are the best choice of search key, because in many
/// cases what the application wants to find is an NSEC3 that has the
/// cases, what the application wants to find is an NSEC3 that has the
/// hash of some particular "normal" domain names. Also, if the underlying
/// implementation encapsulates a single zone, NSEC3 records conceptually
/// belong to a separate name space, which may cause implementation
......
Markdown is supported
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