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

[Richard Guthrie]

Andrew,

Thank you for the feedback.  We wanted to complete the NRPC investigation prior to looking at this issue from a broader perspective.  We will be working with the product teams to look for any further inconsistencies moving forward.  In the meantime, if you find any further inconsistencies, please feel free to forward them and we will investigate.  I will let you know the results of my investigation shortly with regard to your issue below.

Also, I will be on vacation next week so my teammate John Dunning will be working with you regarding this issue.

Richard Guthrie
Support Escalation Engineer
Open Protocols Support Team
http://blogs.msdn.com/OpenSpecification 
Tel: +1 (469) 775-7794
E-mail: rguthrie at microsoft.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet at samba.org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:39 PM
To: Richard Guthrie
Cc: Interoperability Documentation Help; pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: erroneous references to little-endian

On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 06:03 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> We have completed our investigation and have updated the documentation 
> to remove references that specify a parameter as little endian where 
> the values endianess is negotiated by the underlying RPC protocol as 
> we discussed previously.  Here is the list of fields in which the endianess text was removed:

Thankyou.  

However, have you made investigations to see if this has occurred in any other protocols?  

For example, MS-ADTS 7.3.1.1 continues the fine tradition of claiming to present a bit table in little endian, but it is actually big-endian (and is an integer string on LDAP, and little-endian in the NBT netlogon dgram 7.3.1.4).

Andrew Bartlett

--
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.