|
@@ -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
|