Skip to content
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

rec-4.1.x: Revert "rec: Authority records in AA=1 CNAME answer are authoritative" #7159

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 7, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@rgacogne
Copy link
Member

rgacogne commented Nov 7, 2018

Short description

This reverts commit 4caae20.

It turns out that authority records in AA=1 CNAME answer may, or may not, be authoritative, and that in some cases considering them as authoritative causes DNSSEC validation failures.

Checklist

I have:

  • read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
  • compiled this code
  • tested this code
  • included documentation (including possible behaviour changes)
  • documented the code
  • added or modified regression test(s)
  • added or modified unit test(s)
  • checked that this code was merged to master
Revert "rec: Authority records in AA=1 CNAME answer are authoritative"
This reverts commit 4caae20.

It turns out that authority records in AA=1 CNAME answer may, or may
not, be authoritative, and that in some cases considering them as
authoritative causes DNSSEC validation failures.

@rgacogne rgacogne added this to the rec-4.1.x milestone Nov 7, 2018

@rgacogne rgacogne changed the title Revert "rec: Authority records in AA=1 CNAME answer are authoritative" rec-4.1.x: Revert "rec: Authority records in AA=1 CNAME answer are authoritative" Nov 7, 2018

@pieterlexis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pieterlexis commented Nov 7, 2018

related: #7158

@pieterlexis pieterlexis merged commit 19fe978 into PowerDNS:rel/rec-4.1.x Nov 7, 2018

2 of 4 checks passed

LGTM analysis: C/C++ Running analyses for revisions
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build is in progress
Details
LGTM analysis: JavaScript No code changes detected
Details
LGTM analysis: Python No code changes detected
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.