[cifs-protocol] Status of [MS-RAIW]?

[Sebastian Canevari]

Hi Metze,

Thank you for your follow up!

I wanted to make sure you are aware that support for the protocol documents is not restricted by the protocol licensing agreement PFIF signed with Microsoft. You are welcome to submit questions regarding [MS-RAIW] or any other public protocol document regardless of the protocol program the document was published under. If you have any questions regarding the protocol documentation support boundaries, we’re happy to discuss them with you to ensure there are no misunderstanding of the support process and boundaries.

Please let me know if you require further assistance and be my guest to forward this information to your team since many may not be aware of this fact.


Thanks and regards,

Sebastian

Sebastian Canevari
Senior Support Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM
7100 N Hwy 161, Irving, TX - 75039
"Las Colinas - LC2"
Tel: +1 469 775 7849
e-mail: sebastc at microsoft.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan (metze) Metzmacher [mailto:metze at samba.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:26 AM
To: Sebastian Canevari
Cc: Interoperability Documentation Help; pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] Status of [MS-RAIW]?

Hi Sebastian,

> This document describes the management of a general name resolution service whose protocol is described in an RFC. 
> Since it's not providing information related to file, print and UGA, it is not part of WSPP.
> However, the document is publicly available and you can find it at the 
> following location: 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd240484(PROT.10).aspx

It's strongly related to [MS-WINSRA] (which is part of WSPP) and I'd really like to be able to ask for CARs on [MS-RAIW].

I also think that a document is required that specifies the implementation details of Microsoft WINS Servers.
As RFC 1001 and 1002 have not all information.

For me it's really important to have the relations between the 3 protocols documented in detail.

Currently the time stamp handling of name records is the most critical thing for me, that's not documented in detail.

But it's good to have the [MS-RAIW] public is much better than nothing.

metze


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Canevari
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:23 PM
> To: Stefan (metze) Metzmacher; Interoperability Documentation Help; 
> pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
> Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Status of [MS-RAIW]?
> 
> Hi metze,
> 
> While I am working on getting you a detailed response, you can get the published version of the document available on MSDN: 
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd240484(PROT.10).aspx
> 
> I’ll provide you with the answer regarding the WSPP aspect once I have it available.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> Sebastian Canevari
> Senior Support Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM 7100 N 
> Hwy 161, Irving, TX - 75039 "Las Colinas - LC2"
> Tel: +1 469 775 7849
> e-mail: sebastc at microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cifs-protocol-bounces at cifs.org 
> [mailto:cifs-protocol-bounces at cifs.org] On Behalf Of Stefan (metze) 
> Metzmacher
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:46 AM
> To: Interoperability Documentation Help; pfif at tridgell.net; 
> cifs-protocol at samba.org
> Subject: [cifs-protocol] Status of [MS-RAIW]?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I got a draft for preview of the MS-RAIW document last december.
> 
> I'm wondering when this will appear in the WSPP docs.
> 
> metze
> 
>