[cifs-protocol] RE: erroneous references to little-endian

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:25 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> Thank you for the feedback.  I wanted to provide you with a status
> update at this time.  We have completed our investigation and will be
> updating the documentation to reflect that NRPC allows RPC to
> negotiate the endianess on fields with the exception of a subset of
> byte arrays which NRPC handles explicitly.  We will keep the
> identifying text for those fields in which NRPC explicitly sets the
> endianess. 

Indeed.  That will provide very useful information.  If at all possible,
rather than just retaining the text, these should be called out *very*
explicitly, as they would need to be handled as manual code, or using
mechanisms like Samba's subcontext/represent_as IDL extension. 

Wording like 'unlike the remainder of this protocol, ____ always appears
little-endian, as it does not appear in the IDL directly, and therefore
is not handled by the RPC masharalling layer or it endianness
negotiation'. 

>  We are working to correct the documentation at this time and once the
> final changes are complete I will send you the updated NRPC
> documentation.  Please let us know if you have any further
> comments/questions.

Only that a search should be conducted over all other IDL based
protocols for similar errors.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat 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/archive/cifs-protocol/attachments/20090511/70bd070f/attachment.bin