Hi Prem,
Thank you for your report.
On 31 Dec 2005 03:44:27 -0000
"PRAMENDRA SINGH" <parma_it@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> In test case 33(CL_RFC1034_5_3_3_cache_delegation - Analyze the response(caching delegation)),
> the TN sends a delegation in the 2nd step, where in the authority
> section we get the referal of NS2.example.com. & in the additional section we get the IP address for this NS2.example.com.
>
> But in realty in the additional section it comes as NS2.NS2.example.com. the NAME contents
> that I checked like, not providing the client caching functionality..
This is test script's bug ("NS2.NS2.example.com" in Additional section).
We will fix this bug in next release.
Thank you for your report.
> I mean I dint run the caching server locally...just like normal test cases where we donot need the caching functionality...
>
> executed the query like this dig A.example.com. (no caching)
> then I got answer section empty, authority section (NSDNAME) contains NS2.example.com but the additional section (NAME) contains NS2.NS2.example.com
>
> As per my knowledge is concerned I know it should always be the same, I mean the NSDNAME (authority section) & NAME (additional section) contents...also in RFC 1034 there are lots of examples
> in the section 6.2 & onwards....where no where I found the dissimilarity...
>
> please let me know whether my analysis is right or wrong...
Your analysis is correct.
Thanks,
> expecting your comments....
>
> thanks & regrads
> Prem
>
>
--
*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation