Hi all,
I could understand this issue.
I will fix test sequence(test specification) like follow.
DNS Client1 (NUT) DNS Server1 (TN)
| |
|--------------------------------------------->|
| 1. Send standard query |
| QNAME=A.example.com |
| QTYPE=A |
| |
|<---------------------------------------------|
| 2. Standard query response |
| NODATA |
| |
|------------------------------------------> X |
| 3. Send standard query |
| QNAME=A.example.com |
| QTYPE=A |
| |
- |------------------------------------------> X |
+ |--------------------------------------------->|
| 4. Send standard query |
| QNAME=example.com |
| QTYPE=SOA |
| |
v v
Thanks,
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:19:44 +0900
Hideshi Enokihara <Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30 Nov 2005 11:36:50 -0000
> "PRAMENDRA SINGH" <parma_it@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I got one more issue regarding test case no. 55.
> > As it got some problem with script...like asks for
> > qtype=HINFO, whereas in the test sequence its for qtype=A.
>
> As you know, this type will be fixed in next release.
>
> > But the 3rd msg which NUT sends for qtype=SOA...& it should not
> > reach to TN....Its happening...but NUT also wont get any
> > response for this query from its cache...What I could understand
> > from RFC2308 (Section 8),NUT can cache the SOA record...but if
> > any explicit query is given for SOA ...it wont work...coz
> > this is not allowed only to differentiate between normal
> > SOA cached record & SAO cached as a result of negative response...
> >
> > What I have done like,
> > 1. NUT sends query(A.example.com.) for qtype=A
> > 2. TN sends reply with NODATA
> > 3. NUT again executes A.example.com. for qtype=A & gets the response from cache(that means
> > negative response is cached)
> > 4. NUT again execute A.example.com. for qtype=SOA. But this query is neither forwarded to
> > TN nor it gets any result from its cache.....
>
> Sorry,
> I can't understand what do you want to say.
> Do you mean that in Step4, you can not get any action from your resolver?
> Please tell me more in details or send test log.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> > What I believe its as per RFC2308, section 8....
> > Please comment...is it OK..or there is something wrong with my understanding...
> > coz ultimately the test case is passed..
> >
> > thanks & regards
> >
> > Prem
>
>
> --
> *************************************
> Hideshi Enokihara
> IPv6 Business
> Network & Software Development Dept.
> Yokogawa Electric Corporation
>
--
*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation