Create new changelog and include it in the documentation. Include the
previous CHANGES as plain text without any markup.
(cherry picked from commit e9b6031e0c)
Previously, the number of RR types for a single owner name was limited
only by the maximum number of the types (64k). As the data structure
that holds the RR types for the database node is just a linked list, and
there are places where we just walk through the whole list (again and
again), adding a large number of RR types for a single owner named with
would slow down processing of such name (database node).
Add a configurable limit to cap the number of the RR types for a single
owner. This is enforced at the database (rbtdb, qpzone, qpcache) level
and configured with new max-types-per-name configuration option that
can be configured globally, per-view and per-zone.
(cherry picked from commit 00d16211d6368b99f070c1182d8c76b3798ca1db)
Previously, the number of RRs in the RRSets were internally unlimited.
As the data structure that holds the RRs is just a linked list, and
there are places where we just walk through all of the RRs, adding an
RRSet with huge number of RRs inside would slow down processing of said
RRSets.
Add a configurable limit to cap the number of the RRs in a single RRSet.
This is enforced at the database (rbtdb, qpzone, qpcache) level and
configured with new max-records-per-type configuration option that can
be configured globally, per-view and per-zone.
(cherry picked from commit 3fbd21f69a1bcbd26c4c00920e7b0a419e8762fc)
The mechanism was published as RFC 8509. I've briefly looked at diff
between versions -08 and the RFC and did not find significant protocol
change. Quick manual check confirms what we seem to comply with the
published protocol.
(cherry picked from commit 153311da2d)
Draft was eventually published as RFC 9276 but we did not update our
docs. Also add couple mentions in relevant places in the ARM and
dnssec-signzone man page, mainly around "do not touch" places.
(cherry picked from commit 8e4c0329c3)
Having a value higher than signatures-validity does not make sense
and should be treated as a configuration error.
(cherry picked from commit c3d8932f79)
The specification was implemented (#1132) when it was a draft. Now that
it is RFC, add the RFC to the list of supported RFCs.
(cherry picked from commit 5b5f43babc)
