[cifs-protocol] RE: Status: SRX080811600226 ([MS-NRPC] 184.108.40.206.12
Details) superceded by SRX081013600536: [MS-NRPC] operation backing
billwe at microsoft.com
Fri Oct 17 10:38:58 GMT 2008
Thanks Andrew - especially for the corrections.
Just to clarify, the document was never meant to be standalone; it is basically a set of notes I took during running down parameter storage. I do have more work to do before submitting the contained information as a change proposal for [MS-NRPC].
Of course, I do have more work to do before that, and I will keep you advised as I progress.
MCSE, MCTS / Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM
8055 Microsoft Way
Charlotte, NC 28273
TEL: +1(980) 776-8200
CELL: +1(704) 661-5438
FAX: +1(704) 665-9606
From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet at samba.org]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:12 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: 'pfif at tridgell.net'; 'cifs-protocol at samba.org'
Subject: RE: Status: SRX080811600226 ([MS-NRPC] 220.127.116.11.12 Trust Account Details) superceded by SRX081013600536: [MS-NRPC] operation backing store linkages
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 06:40 -0700, Bill Wesse wrote:
> Good morning Andrew. For your review, I have attached a working
> document that details usage and Active Directory storage of several
> select parameters used by [MS-NRPC] operations.
> The parameter notes in the document are not complete, and several
> require additional research. Additionally, the document is organized
> around operation parameters by name, not by operation. This is for the
> purpose of brevity. I though it would be unproductive to insert
> comments into sections of the original [MS-NRPC] document as examples
> - which is what this doc is, example text.
> I would deeply appreciate your feedback concerning the quality of, and
> whether or not this is the sort of information you are looking for
> concerning the backing store information for the [MS-NRPC] operations
This is looking good, and seems quite a reasonable way to approach the problem. A few errors (just because I'm picky :-):
1.1 You give a lot of detail about accountName, except the actual attribute.
1.3 DomainName is not stored in the DC attribute - this is just the first component of the domain name.
The example objects are not the most useful thing - if they are just un-annotated LDIF pastes. (I can usually find them by a simple search on my test DC, but probably do help the hypothetical target of a independent developer not performing network analysis).
I do look forward to the completed document.
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
More information about the cifs-protocol