[cifs-protocol] The Abstract Data Modal
abartlet at samba.org
Tue Nov 11 03:12:52 GMT 2008
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 13:22 +1100, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> > The format of this backing store is determined (to a great degree) by
> > the way these attributes are visible in LDAP (as almost all changes via
> > the other protocols are visible over LDAP), and by the replicated data
> > stream a peer DC would provide/accept over DRSUAPI.
> yep, thats true of many of them, especially the protocols we tend to
> deal with.
> > However, the Microsoft documents have been written so as to frustrate
> > the implementer at every turn. At no time in the main section of the
> > documents do they clearly link the wire elements to the elements in the
> > backend store.
> I think you have a valid point, but I don't think it is at all a
> deliberate attempt to frustrate us! It just comes from the approach of
> treating the protocols (to a large degree) in an isolated manner when
> writing the documents.
And, I suspect, from the fact that up until now all the users of the
document have been client implementations. I don't argue that the
documents were written intentionally to frustrate, but they, as written,
do frustrate the server implementer (me) at almost every turn.
I don't know who directed that this approach be taken, but just as with
the bitfields, I hope that our concerns can be taken seriously.
> I think your suggestion that the documents should use the LDAP schema
> names for the objects where possible is a very good one. Many of the
> interconnected protocols are bound together by LDAP, and there are
> tools (such as mmc) that rely heavily on the exposure of these
> concepts directly in LDAP. So the LDAP schema provides a very natural
> way to connect these current disconnected protocols elements within a
> common framework.
Part of the reason I would like to see the LDAP schema used is actually
to highlight the cases where a simple mapping onto that schema is not
possible. For example there are instances (such as those you comment
on, in LSA) where the LDAP backing store does not apply, and others
where it applies, but not in the fashion one might expect. Both of
these are simply unclear in the current doc.
The queries on this list are littered with examples of these. (As I've
tried to may this point the other way, by pointing out each instance
with the abstract data modal fails. This has produced clarification,
but no overall effort to solve the systemic issues).
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/cifs-protocol/attachments/20081111/902c0236/attachment.bin
More information about the cifs-protocol