[cifs-protocol] [REG:210050354365053001] more ms-dfsc.pdf questions

Mon May 10 10:03:41 MDT 2010

Hi Matthieu:
We have finished our investigation on your question regarding domain name and expanded name. A future version of MS-DFSC will incorporate the modification as follows:

Section 2.2.2
-----------------
DC referral: The path MUST be "\<domain>" or "<domain>", where <domain> is a domain name that MUST be in either NetBIOS or fully qualified domain name forms.

Section 2.2.4.3.2
-----------------------
SpecialNameOffset (2 bytes):  A 16-bit integer indicating the offset, in bytes, from the beginning of the referral entry to a domain name. The domain name MUST be of the form "\<domain>". For a domain referral response, this <domain> MUST be the domain name that corresponds to the referral entry. For a DC referral response, this <domain> MUST be the domain name that is specified in the DC referral request. The domain name MUST be a null-terminated string. 

ExpandedNameOffset (2 bytes):  A 16-bit integer indicating the offset, in bytes, from the beginning of this referral entry to the first DC name string returned in response to a DC referral request. If multiple DC name strings are being returned in response to a DC referral request, the first DC name string must be followed immediately by the additional DC name strings. The total number of consecutive name strings MUST be equal to the value of the NumberOfExpandedNames field. This field MUST be set to 0 for a domain referral response. Each DC name MUST be a null-terminated string and MUST be prefixed with "\".

I have also attached a PDF file to this email that includes color highlighting to mark the changes.
Please let me know if this answers your question. If it does, I'll consider this issue resolved.

I am still working on your question regarding the effects of site on sorting order of DC names and will be in touch as soon as I have an answer.

Regards,
Obaid Farooqi
Sr. Support Escalation Engineer | Microsoft

________________________________________
From: Matthieu Patou [mat+Informatique.Samba at matws.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:16 AM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help; pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: more ms-dfsc.pdf questions

Dear dochelp,

The paragraph "2.2.1.3    Domain Name"
define domain name as
"  Unless specified otherwise, a domain name MUST be a null-terminated Unicode character string
   consisting of the name of a domain. This can be either a NetBIOS name or a fully qualified domain
   name (FQDN), as specified in [MS-ADTS]."

So when we have in "3.3.5.3    Receiving a DC Referral Request"

  " The domain name in the referral request MUST be either a domain in the current forest or a domain
   in a trusted forest. The server MUST fail DC referral requests for other domain names with a
   STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER (0xC000000D) return code."

We expect the client to request either FOOBAR (netbios domain) or foobar.demo.com (fqdn).

But it turns out that windows XP at least is requesting \FOOBAR and \foobar.demo.com when w7 and w2k8 are requestion FOOBAR and foobar.demo.com

Also in the same paragraph "The SpecialNameOffset field MUST be set to the offset in bytes from the beginning of the referral entry to the string that contains the domain name for the referral response."
It let me think that this field should contain FOOBAR or foobar.demo.com but it turns out that it's \FOOBAR or \foobar.demo.com that is returned (the example in the mails out dfs questions from Bill Wesse was also showing this).

The same remark apply the ExpandedName that also present a '\'.

In this paragraph it stated that:
"The ExpandedNameOffset field MUST be set to the offset in bytes from the beginning of the referral entry to the first null-terminated DC Unicode string. Each DC name immediately follows its null-terminated predecessor without any padding. An implementation MUST use the value in the NumberOfExpandedNames field to determine how many names are present in the list at ExpandedNameOffset.
"
but in this doc:
"http://technet.microsoft.com/ru-ru/library/cc782417%28WS.10%29.aspx"
this point:

"The client checks its domain cache for an existing domain controller referral for the Contoso.com domain. If this referral is in the cache, the client proceeds to step 5. If no domain controller referral is in the domain cache, the client connects to the IPC$ shared folder of the active domain controller in the context of the LocalSystem account and sends a domain controller referral request containing the appropriate domain name (Contoso.com). The domain controller returns the list of domain controllers in the Contoso.com domain. The domain controllers in the clients site are at the top of the list. If least-expensive target selection is enabled, domain controllers outside of the targets site are sorted by lowest cost. If same-site target selection is enabled, DFS ignores this setting and lists the remaining domain controllers in random order. "

Tells us that the same-site target or other parameters have an influence.

Maybe the MS-DFSC needs to be updated ? Also where those parameters (same-site target, least-expensive, ...) are stored (in the DS or somewhere else).

The next paragraph sates: "From the IP address of the client, determine the site of the client" what should happen is the client is not in a site (for instance if it has a static ip and the admin forgot to declare this subnet in one site) ?

Regards.

Matthieu.

Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy.  Please read the Microsoft Privacy Statement for more information.The above is an email for a support case from Microsoft Corp.REPLY ALL TO THIS MESSAGE or INCLUDE casemail at microsoft.com IN YOUR REPLY if you want your response added to the case automatically. For technical assistance, please include the Support Engineer on the TO: line. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: changesToMS-DFSC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 110250 bytes
Desc: changesToMS-DFSC.pdf
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/cifs-protocol/attachments/20100510/413bc23d/attachment-0001.pdf>