[cifs-protocol] RE: Answer: SRX080609601575 : [MS-ADA3]: 2.43 2.44
string forms of AD attributes
billwe at microsoft.com
Wed Jul 16 12:41:41 GMT 2008
I will certainly keep the Cc: list on emails. BTW - no problem on the objectGUID format, I'll be in touch as soon as I get feedback on the suggested changes.
MCSE / Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM
8055 Microsoft Way
Charlotte, NC 28273
From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet at samba.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:21 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Subject: RE: Answer: SRX080609601575 : [MS-ADA3]: 2.43 2.44 string forms of AD attributes
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 04:17 -0700, Bill Wesse wrote:
> Your suggestions and assertions make sense to me. So...
> [MS-ADTS] 220.127.116.11.1.3.4 is a difficult paragraph to follow. I have
> suggested an additional reference to the MSDN 'Search Filter' topic
> (shown at the end of this email) to clarify that.
> I have also forwarded your suggestion that the special semantics for
> objectCategory and objectSID belong in [MS-ADA3], as per-object
> behaviors, eliminating the document cross-reference problem.
> On another topic, we omitted comments concerning the objectGUID
> attribute, since it must be formatted in hexadecimal (\xx\xx\...\xx).
> We have verified this in testing several times (performed by both
> myself and one of our senior developers). We are at a loss concerning
> the source of your assertion there is an alternate string format for
Indeed. I appear to be seeing things - I can't reproduce that one at this stage. I'm probably being tripped up by the fact that Samba does allow these attributes to be specified as strings.
I'm sorry for having you have to chase up this red herring.
BTW, Please remember to keep the list CC'ed.
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
More information about the cifs-protocol