Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:05:40 +0900
From: Nobumichi Ozoe <Nobumichi.Ozoe@jp.yokogawa.com>
Subject: [dnstest:00039] Re: Got an issure regarding test case no. 53
To: PRAMENDRA SINGH <parma_it@rediffmail.com>
Cc: dnstest@tahi.org
Message-Id: <43AF7A24.4010107@jp.yokogawa.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051226043309.24133.qmail@webmail63.rediffmail.com>
References: <20051226043309.24133.qmail@webmail63.rediffmail.com>
X-Mail-Count: 00039

Hi

You are right. No.54 is also for server.
But No.51 and No.52 are for resolver.

Why do you think that those are for server?

Best regards,

PRAMENDRA SINGH wrote:
> Hi
> 
> thanks for your reply...
> As in your reply u said Test case 53. is optional & furthermore for 
> servers....but what I could understand, not only 53, test case nos.
> 51, 52 & 54 are also for servers...
> 
> please comment
> 
> thanks & regards
> Prem
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 Nobumichi Ozoe wrote :
>  >Hi,
>  >
>  >Well you are talking about Tet No.53 Caching of dead server indication.
>  >
>  >We wrote this test specification based on RFC2038 7.2 Dead / 
> Unreachable Server (OPTIONAL). This function is OPTIONAL and furthermore 
> for servers.
>  >Then we think that we will delete this specification.
>  >
>  >Anyway, thanks your opinion.
>  >
>  >Best regards,
>  >
>  >PRAMENDRA SINGH wrote:
>  >>Hi
>  >>
>  >>thanks for your reply.....  :-)
>  >>well the way I have tested all caching related test cases are...
>  >>
>  >>I'm running caching server locally....in the NUT....
>  >>
>  >>So, (in this test case 55) whenever I give any query (for first 
> time), sends it to the TN...
>  >>on receiving the reply...caches it ....now if I do the same query 2nd 
> time...
>  >>it wont send to the TN...will resolve from its cache itself...
>  >>Now as per this test case...first time we send the query A.example.com.
>  >>but the server (TN) never replies...So next time (in the 3rd step) if we
>  >>give the same query.....NUT wont get any information in its cache...
>  >>so it will again send it to the TN.....
>  >>
>  >>If it does not ...then (in general scenario) say I sent a query to 
> the server
>  >>& dint get any reply...again I sent the same query to the same server...
>  >>then as per this test scenario...my client should not send the query 
> to the saver..
>  >>which I believe does not sound logical....
>  >>
>  >>Moreover I donno how to maintain cache in the NUT without running 
> caching server....
>  >>coz as per my knowledge...someone should be there who must take care 
> of this
>  >>cache...(say checking the TTL value)....which the dig utility can't 
> do....
>  >>
>  >>I hope I could explain u....
>  >>
>  >>please comment...
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>thanks & regards
>  >>
>  >>Prem
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> 
>  >>
>  >>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 Nobumichi.Ozoe@jp.yokogawa.com wrote :
>  >>  >Hi,
>  >>  >
>  >>  >I can't understand that you said "how the NUT will cache it".
>  >>  >Could you teach me your opinion?
>  >>  >
>  >>  >Best regards,
>  >>  >
>  >>  >________________________________
>  >>  >
>  >>  > From: PRAMENDRA SINGH [mailto:parma_it@rediffmail.com]
>  >>  >Sent: 2005/12/08 (木) 13:06
>  >>  >To: dnstest@tahi.org
>  >>  >Cc: users@tahi.org
>  >>  >Subject: [dnstest:00029] Got an issure regarding test case no. 53
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >Hi
>  >>  >
>  >>  >As per the new release(6th Dec) of DNS Client test cases
>  >>  >I got an issue regarding test case no. 53.
>  >>  >As per test sequence....
>  >>  >
>  >>  >1. NUT first sends query (A.example.com) to TN
>  >>  >2. Server (TN) does not send response within 120 seconds...
>  >>  >3. NUT must send query (A.example.com) to the TN..but it should 
> not reach the TN...
>  >>  >NUT should be able to
>  >>  >
>  >>  >I got the doubt here in the 3rd step...If the server is not going 
> to send
>  >>  >any response then how the NUT will cache it...so that in the next 
> time (in the 3rd step)
>  >>  >definitely the packet will go to the TN...
>  >>  >
>  >>  >Please let me know whether my analysis is right or wrong...
>  >>  >
>  >>  >Your comments are always valuable for me...
>  >>  >
>  >>  >thanks & regards
>  >>  >
>  >>  >Prem
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >  
> <http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >><http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3> 
> 
>  >
>  >
>  >-- Nobumichi Ozoe
>  >IPv6 Business
>  >Network & Software Development Dept.
>  >Yokogawa Electric Corporation
>  >E-mail: Nobumichi.Ozoe@jp.yokogawa.com
>  >URL: http://www.yokogawa.com/
> 
> 
> 
> <http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3> 
> 


-- 
Nobumichi Ozoe
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation
E-mail: Nobumichi.Ozoe@jp.yokogawa.com
URL: http://www.yokogawa.com/