<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS =
and Domain Search Options</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT =
face="ＭＳ Ｐゴシック"
color=#0000ff size=2>Hello Scott,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT =
face="ＭＳ Ｐゴシック"
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT =
face="ＭＳ Ｐゴシック"
color=#0000ff size=2>I'm sorry for my delay =
response.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="ＭＳ =
Ｐゴシック" color=#0000ff =
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="ＭＳ =
Ｐゴシック" color=#0000ff =
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN =
class=327204500-15062007></SPAN><FONT
face="ＭＳ Ｐゴシック"><FONT =
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>D<SPAN
class=327204500-15062007>o you mean that both of =
these tests was
PASS </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="ＭＳ =
Ｐゴシック"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=327204500-15062007>when your product included =
the both
Domain Recursive Name Server option and Domain Search List
option.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>
C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSchLstOpt.seq<BR>  =
;
C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSvrOpt.seq</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT size=2>I would like to =
know detailed
situation.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT =
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT size=2>Could you send me =
the logo,
please?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT size=2>#You can use <A
href="mailto:contact@tahi.org">contact@tahi.org</A> in such
report.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="ＭＳ =
Ｐゴシック" color=#0000ff =
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT face="ＭＳ =
Ｐゴシック" color=#0000ff
size=2>Thank you for your cooperation.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="ＭＳ =
Ｐゴシック" color=#0000ff =
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT face="ＭＳ =
Ｐゴシック" color=#0000ff
size=2>regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=327204500-15062007><FONT =
face="ＭＳ Ｐゴシック"
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=ja dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Scott Langley
[mailto:slangley@tadboise.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 06, =
2007 11:53
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Enokihara, Hideshi
(Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com)<BR><B>Cc:</B>
dhcptest@tahi.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: =
Tests that
check for DNS and Domain Search Options<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Hi Hideshi,<BR><BR>I think I agree with your =
thoughts about
what the tests should do. <BR><BR>The problem is that our client =
device
does include options 23 and 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.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Scott<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com [<A
=
href="mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com">mailto:Hideshi.Enokihar=
a@jp.yokogawa.com</A>]<BR>Sent:
Tue 6/5/2007 7:07 PM<BR>To: Scott Langley<BR>Cc: =
dhcptest@tahi.org<BR>Subject:
RE: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS and Domain =
Search
Options<BR><BR>Hello Scott,<BR><BR>Thank you for your =
report.<BR><BR>But,
these tests that you mentioned are correct, I think.<BR><BR>These =
tests focus
on following statements in RFC
3646.<BR><BR>----------------------------<BR>5. Appearance of =
these
options<BR><BR> The DNS Recursive Name Server option MUST =
NOT
appear in any other<BR> than the following messages: =
Solicit,
Advertise, Request, Renew,<BR> Rebind, =
Information-Request, and
Reply.<BR><BR> The Domain Search List option MUST NOT =
appear in
any other than the<BR> following messages: Solicit, =
Advertise,
Request, Renew, Rebind,<BR> Information-Request, and
Reply.<BR>----------------------------<BR><BR>So, these tests really =
expect
that the message does not include DNS<BR>Recursive Name Server =
option/Domain
Search List
=
option.<BR><BR>regards,<BR>...Hideshi<BR>________________________________=
<BR><BR>
From: Scott Langley [<A
=
href="mailto:slangley@tadboise.com">mailto:slangley@tadboise.com</A>]<B=
R>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:17
AM<BR> To: Enokihara, =
Hideshi
=
(Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com)<BR> &nbs=
p;
Cc: dhcptest@tahi.org<BR> =
Subject:
RE: FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS<BR>and Domain =
Search
=
Options<BR> <BR> &nbs=
p; <BR><BR> &nb=
sp;
Hi
=
Hideshi,<BR> <BR> &nb=
sp;
The revised files you sent do appear to work
=
properly.<BR> <BR> &n=
bsp;
However, I think there are a few more tests that have
=
problems.<BR> <BR> &n=
bsp;
These two test pass, even though our DECLINE messages include<BR>both =
options
23 and
=
24:<BR> <BR> &n=
bsp;
=
C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSchLstOpt.seq<BR>  =
;
=
C_RFC3646_5_InvDecDnsSvrOpt.seq<BR> &n=
bsp;<BR>
I suspect that the options_exist() method of DHCPv6_common.pm<BR>may =
be
=
flawed.<BR> <BR> &nbs=
p;
These four other tests, below, are similarly written, but I<BR>can't =
say if
there is anything wrong with them because our product<BR>doesn't yet =
send
CONFIRM and RELEASE messages when it
=
should:<BR> <BR> &nbs=
p;
=
C_RFC3646_5_InvCnfDnsSchLstOpt.seq<BR>  =
;
=
C_RFC3646_5_InvCnfDnsSvrOpt.seq<BR> &n=
bsp;
=
C_RFC3646_5_InvRelDnsSchLstOpt.seq<BR>  =
;
=
C_RFC3646_5_InvRelDnsSvrOpt.seq<BR> &n=
bsp;<BR>
=
Thanks.<BR> <BR> &nbs=
p;
--<BR> Scott
Langley<BR> Adecco
Technical<BR>
=
slangley@tadboise.com<BR> <BR>&n=
bsp; <BR>  =
;
-----Original =
Message-----<BR> From:
Hideshi Enokihara<BR>[<A
=
href="mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com">mailto:Hideshi.Enokihar=
a@jp.yokogawa.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 7:15 =
PM<BR> To:
Scott Langley<BR> Cc:
dhcptest@tahi.org<BR> =
Subject: Re:
FW: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS<BR>and Domain Search =
=
Options<BR> <BR> &nbs=
p;
Hello
=
Scott,<BR> <BR>  =
;
Thank you for your
=
report.<BR> <BR> &nbs=
p;
Please use attached files instead of original
files.<BR> Then, could you =
let me
know that these scripts work well or
=
not,<BR>please?<BR> <BR> &n=
bsp;
Thank you for your
=
cooperation.<BR> <BR>  =
;
Regards,<BR>
=
...Hideshi<BR> <BR> &=
nbsp;
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:48:46
+0900<BR>
<Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com>
=
wrote:<BR> <BR>  =
;
><BR>
><BR> > -----Original
Message-----<BR> > From: =
Scott
Langley [<A
=
href="mailto:slangley@tadboise.com">mailto:slangley@tadboise.com</A>]<B=
R>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:44
AM<BR> > To:
dhcptest@tahi.org<BR> > =
Subject:
RE: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS
and<BR>Domain<BR> > =
Search
Options<BR>
><BR> > Hi
Hideshi,<BR>
><BR> > These are =
probably the
test that would fail due to this<BR>reason, from
the<BR> > results of =
doing a grep
search:<BR>
><BR> > PCBSD# grep =
'!= 23'
*.seq<BR>
><BR> >
C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 23){<BR> > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Reb.seq:if($reb{$optionCode} != 23){<BR> > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Ren.seq:if($ren{$optionCode} != 23){<BR> > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Req.seq:if($req{$optionCode} != 23){<BR> > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Sol.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 23){<BR> ><BR> > PCBSD# grep =
'!= 24'
*.seq<BR>
><BR> >
C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Reb.seq:if($reb{$optionCode} != 24){<BR> > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Ren.seq:if($ren{$optionCode} != 24){<BR> > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Req.seq:if($req{$optionCode} != 24){<BR> > C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Sol.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 24){<BR> > C_RFC3646_4_DnsSchLstOpt.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 24){<BR> ><BR>
><BR> > -----Original
Message-----<BR> > From:
=
Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com<BR> =
> [<A
=
href="mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com">mailto:Hideshi.Enokihar=
a@jp.yokogawa.com</A>]<BR>
> Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 6:14 =
PM<BR>
> To: =
dhcptest@tahi.org<BR> >
Subject: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS and<BR>Domain
Search<BR> >
Options<BR>
><BR> > Hello
Scott,<BR>
><BR> > Yes, we have =
to fix
these bugs as soon as =
possible.<BR>
> Could you let me know the numbers (or titles) of the tests, =
if<BR>you
have<BR> > time,
please?<BR> > It will =
help us to
fix the bugs.<BR>
><BR> >
regards,<BR> >
...Hideshi<BR>
><BR>
><BR> >
=
________________________________<BR> &=
nbsp;
><BR>
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [<A
=
href="mailto:volz@cisco.com">mailto:volz@cisco.com</A>]<BR> =
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 =
5:33
AM<BR>
> To:
dhcptest@tahi.org<BR>
> Subject: [dhcptest:00172] Re: =
Tests
that check for =
DNS<BR>and<BR> >
Domain Search Options<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
=
> <BR>  =
;
> Order of the options should =
not
matter (either in the<BR>ORO or
in<BR> > the =
Advertise/Reply).
So, if the test code is order dependent,<BR>it
should<BR> > be
fixed.<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> -
Bernie<BR>
><BR> >
=
________________________________<BR> &=
nbsp;
><BR>
> From: Scott Langley [<A
=
href="mailto:slangley@tadboise.com">mailto:slangley@tadboise.com</A>]<B=
R>
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 =
3:56
PM<BR>
> To:
dhcptest@tahi.org<BR>
> Subject: [dhcptest:00171] =
Tests that
check for DNS =
and<BR>Domain<BR> >
Search Options<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
=
> <BR>  =
;
><BR>
>
Hello,<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> Many of the tests in the RFC =
3646 and
RFC 3736 sections<BR>of =
the<BR> >
DHCPv6 Self Test Suite 1.01 (and earlier) are failing for us<BR>for
the<BR> > wrong
reason.<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> The way our (client) product =
is
currently behaving
it<BR>requests<BR> > =
these
options:<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> 13
OPTION_STATUS_CODE<BR>
> 12
OPTION_UNICAST<BR>
> 23
OPTION_DNS_SERVERS<BR>
> 24
OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST<BR>
> 7
OPTION_PREFERENCE<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> Many tests, for example, RFC =
3646 -
Test<BR>DHCP_CONF.4.1.1: =
Option<BR>
> Request option =
Format<BR>
> PartA: Option request Option
Format(DNS Recursive
Name<BR>Server<BR> >
option)<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> fail because option 13 is not =
option
23, according to<BR>the =
code:<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> if($sol($optionCode != 23)
{<BR> > # Logging of =
failure
message.<BR>
>
}<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> Shouldn't the test be =
re-written to
check whether or =
not<BR>option<BR>
> 23 is among the options
requested<BR>
> rather than whether or not it =
is the
first =
option<BR>requested?<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> Also, I know our client =
shouldn't be
requesting option<BR>12,<BR> =
>
Server Unicast, as that option should only appear in
Reply<BR>messages<BR> > =
coming
from a server. I don't think you have any tests yet<BR>that
check<BR> > for the =
appearance of
options in different message types as<BR>described
in<BR> > Appendix A of
RFC3315.<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> <A
=
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315#page-98">http://tools.ietf.org=
/html/rfc3315#page-98</A><BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
>
Thanks.<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
> Scott
Langley<BR>
> Adecco
Technical<BR>
>
slangley@tadboise.com<BR>
=
> <BR>  =
;
=
> <BR>  =
;
><BR>
><BR>
=
><BR> <BR> &=
nbsp; <BR>
--<BR>
=
*************************************<BR> &n=
bsp;
Hideshi Enokihara<BR> IPv6
Business<BR> Network & =
Software
Development Dept.<BR> =
Yokogawa
Electric
=
Corporation<BR> <BR> =
<BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>=
</HTML>