Tony Finch e8ff0f0c08 Correct value of DNS_NAME_MAXLABELS ... It should be floor(DNS_NAME_MAXWIRE / 2) + 1 == 128 The mistake was introduced in c6bf51492d because: * I was refactoring an existing `DNS_MAX_LABELS` defined as 127 * There was a longstanding bug in `dns_name_isvalid()` which checked the number of labels against 127U instead of 128 * I mistakenly thought `dns_name_isvalid()` was correct and `dns_name_countlabels()` was incorrect, but the reverse was true. After this commit, occurrances of `DNS_NAME_MAXLABELS` with value 128 are consistent with the use of 127 or 128 before commit c6bf51492d except for the mistake in `dns_name_isvalid()`. This commit adds a test case that checks the MAXLABELS case in `dns_name_fromtext()` and `dns_name_isvalid()`.		2023-04-05 14:46:39 +00:00
..
dns	Correct value of DNS_NAME_MAXLABELS	2023-04-05 14:46:39 +00:00
dst	Replace isc_fsaccess API with more secure file creation	2023-03-31 12:52:59 +00:00
irs	Move irs_resconf into libdns and remove libirs	2023-02-24 09:38:59 +00:00
.clang-format	Add separate .clang-format files for headers	2020-02-14 09:31:05 +01:00