Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:52:02 +0900 From: <Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com> Subject: [dhcptest:00182] Re: FW: Re: Tests that check for DNS and Domain Search Options To: <slangley@tadboise.com> Cc: <dhcptest@tahi.org> Message-Id: <0260031F55435342859BFB2CCA6773D81B898B6F@EXCHANGE03.jp.ykgw.net> In-Reply-To: <04654E52DE5D8D47906217E3D32FA976073C6D@sbserver.tadboise.com> X-Mail-Count: 00182Hello Scott, I'm sorry for my delay response. Do you mean that both of these tests was PASS when your product included the both Domain Recursive Name Server optionand Domain Search List option. C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSchLstOpt.seq C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSvrOpt.seq I would like to know detailed situation. Could you send me the logo, please?#You can use contact@tahi.org in such report. Thank you for your cooperation. regards, ________________________________ From: Scott Langley [mailto:slangley@tadboise.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:53 AM To: Enokihara, Hideshi (Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com) Cc: dhcptest@tahi.org Subject: RE: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNSand Domain Search Options Hi Hideshi, I think I agree with your thoughts about what the tests shoulddo. The problem is that our client device does include options 23and 24 in its Decline packets - and yet the Tahi Tests reports that they"PASS" these tests. I would expect our product to fail these tests. Regards, Scott -----Original Message----- From: Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com[mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com] Sent: Tue 6/5/2007 7:07 PM To: Scott Langley Cc: dhcptest@tahi.org Subject: RE: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNSand Domain Search Options Hello Scott, Thank you for your report. But, these tests that you mentioned are correct, I think. These tests focus on following statements in RFC 3646. ---------------------------- 5. Appearance of these options The DNS Recursive Name Server option MUST NOT appear in anyother than the following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request,Renew, Rebind, Information-Request, and Reply. The Domain Search List option MUST NOT appear in any otherthan the following messages: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew,Rebind, Information-Request, and Reply. ---------------------------- So, these tests really expect that the message does not includeDNS Recursive Name Server option/Domain Search List option. regards, ...Hideshi ________________________________ From: Scott Langley [mailto:slangley@tadboise.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:17 AM To: Enokihara, Hideshi(Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com) Cc: dhcptest@tahi.org Subject: RE: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that checkfor DNS and Domain Search Options Hi Hideshi, The revised files you sent do appear to work properly. However, I think there are a few more tests that haveproblems. These two test pass, even though our DECLINE messagesinclude both options 23 and 24: C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSchLstOpt.seq C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSvrOpt.seq I suspect that the options_exist() method ofDHCPv6_common.pm may be flawed. These four other tests, below, are similarly written,but I can't say if there is anything wrong with them because ourproduct doesn't yet send CONFIRM and RELEASE messages when it should: C_RFC3646_5_InvCnfDnsSchLstOpt.seq C_RFC3646_5_InvCnfDnsSvrOpt.seq C_RFC3646_5_InvRelDnsSchLstOpt.seq C_RFC3646_5_InvRelDnsSvrOpt.seq Thanks. -- Scott Langley Adecco Technical slangley@tadboise.com -----Original Message----- From: Hideshi Enokihara [mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com] Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 7:15 PM To: Scott Langley Cc: dhcptest@tahi.org Subject: Re: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that checkfor DNS and Domain Search Options Hello Scott, Thank you for your report. Please use attached files instead of original files. Then, could you let me know that these scripts work wellor not, please? Thank you for your cooperation. Regards, ...Hideshi On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:48:46 +0900 <Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Langley [mailto:slangley@tadboise.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:44 AM > To: dhcptest@tahi.org > Subject: RE: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check forDNS and Domain > Search Options > > Hi Hideshi, > > These are probably the test that would fail due tothis reason, from the > results of doing a grep search: > > PCBSD# grep '!= 23' *.seq > > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 23){ > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Reb.seq:if($reb{$optionCode} !=23){ > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Ren.seq:if($ren{$optionCode} !=23){ > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Req.seq:if($req{$optionCode} !=23){ > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Sol.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} !=23){ > > PCBSD# grep '!= 24' *.seq > > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Reb.seq:if($reb{$optionCode}!= 24){ > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Ren.seq:if($ren{$optionCode}!= 24){ > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Req.seq:if($req{$optionCode}!= 24){ > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Sol.seq:if($sol{$optionCode}!= 24){ > C_RFC3646_4_DnsSchLstOpt.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} !=24){ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com > [mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com] > Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 6:14 PM > To: dhcptest@tahi.org > Subject: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNSand Domain Search > Options > > Hello Scott, > > Yes, we have to fix these bugs as soon as possible. > Could you let me know the numbers (or titles) of thetests, if you have > time, please? > It will help us to fix the bugs. > > regards, > ...Hideshi > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:33 AM > To: dhcptest@tahi.org > Subject: [dhcptest:00172] Re: Tests that checkfor DNS and > Domain Search Options > > > Order of the options should not matter (eitherin the ORO or in > the Advertise/Reply). So, if the test code is orderdependent, it should > be fixed. > > - Bernie > > ________________________________ > > From: Scott Langley[mailto:slangley@tadboise.com] > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 3:56 PM > To: dhcptest@tahi.org > Subject: [dhcptest:00171] Tests that check forDNS and Domain > Search Options > > > > Hello, > > Many of the tests in the RFC 3646 and RFC 3736sections of the > DHCPv6 Self Test Suite 1.01 (and earlier) are failingfor us for the > wrong reason. > > The way our (client) product is currentlybehaving it requests > these options: > > 13 OPTION_STATUS_CODE > 12 OPTION_UNICAST > 23 OPTION_DNS_SERVERS > 24 OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST > 7 OPTION_PREFERENCE > > Many tests, for example, RFC 3646 - Test DHCP_CONF.4.1.1: Option > Request option Format > PartA: Option request Option Format(DNSRecursive Name Server > option) > > fail because option 13 is not option 23,according to the code: > > if($sol($optionCode != 23) { > # Logging of failure message. > } > > Shouldn't the test be re-written to checkwhether or not option > 23 is among the options requested > rather than whether or not it is the firstoption requested? > > Also, I know our client shouldn't be requestingoption 12, > Server Unicast, as that option should only appear inReply messages > coming from a server. I don't think you have anytests yet that check > for the appearance of options in different messagetypes as described in > Appendix A of RFC3315. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315#page-98 > > Thanks. > > Scott Langley > Adecco Technical > slangley@tadboise.com > > > > > -- ************************************* Hideshi Enokihara IPv6 Business Network & Software Development Dept. Yokogawa Electric Corporation182_2.html (attatchment)(tag is disabled)