DNSSEC validator #328
DNSSEC validator #328
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Terts Diepraam <terts.diepraam@gmail.com>
| #![cfg(feature = "unstable-validator")] | ||
|
|
||
| //! This module provides a DNSSEC validator as described in RFCs | ||
| //! [4033](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I recently talked about this with Martin and we converged on referencing tools.ietf.org for RFCs instead. Do you agree?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't you mean tools.ietf.org. That doesn't work. Maybe you mean the datatracker? In any case I use what is used in the bibtex files. Those links seem the best for stable references.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don’t feel too strongly about which one we use, but we should be consistent.
But in any case, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033 is kind of terrible since you need an extra click to get to the text. If we use the RFC Editor site, it should probably be https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4033.html (i.e., rfc instead of info).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the guide for references in RFCs: https://authors.ietf.org/en/references-in-rfcxml
The documentation needs a bit more. A few minor things that are still needed: the GetResult future in the validator transport is not cancel safe. Too large TTLs need to be capped.