[cifs-protocol] erroneous references to little-endian

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 19:27 +0000, Hongwei Sun wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
>     We added the explanation about how bit fields are presented in documents to MS-DTYP v2.1.  This information is consistent with the template we have been using to write our currently published protocol documents.  The updated section is attached for your review.
> 
>     Hopefully this update can provide readers a clear reference when  using bit field tables in the documents.   At the same time, we are continuing working on the broader issue of the bit fields to improve their usability.

Well, for me it only confirms the insanity.  

Can we at least agree to remove the use of bitfield tables where the
endian-ness is negotiated (RPC) or otherwise determined (ASN.1)?.  The
'network order' bitfeilds make no sense in this situations, as all
programming must be done in host-order integers with bitmasks anyway.  

This remains the single most frustrating part of the documentation
because it's clear that Microsoft very much understands the problem, yet
is unable to overcome it's insistence on creating this impediment!

Thank you in advance for any progress you are able to make in this area,

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/cifs-protocol/attachments/20090829/937acf9f/attachment.pgp>