[cifs-protocol] [REG:110110481276509] Please include bitfield names in MS-NRPC LogonParameters
abartlet at samba.org
Fri Nov 5 16:04:15 MDT 2010
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 21:51 +0000, Bryan Burgin wrote:
> Hi Andrew.
> Is the absence of the Windows-specific variable names blocking your
Yes, in a way. The behaviour of these items is not well documented
here, but is elsewhere, but without the constant values. Using the
correct names allows us to tie in different sources of information.
> There may be push back to do so since this is in the normative section
> of the document. I agree that it seems like a helpful suggestion. Is
> there an argument I can present on your behalf to show a reason that
> doing so is required to implement the protocol.
> As for adding the hex values, I'm prepared to make that request.
Frankly, I don't understand why the name cannot be included, as it is in
so many other places? For example, MS-SAMR 188.8.131.52 USER_ACCOUNT Codes
Given that the fundamental purpose of these documents is to help, rather
than hinder, the development of interoperable implementations, what is
the argument against including the normative and traditional names for
On the same argument you could rewrite the IDL to be a series of
'member1, member2', with verbose descriptions but no rational names.
Using common, existing names helps developers achieve interoperability
because it enables clear and effective communication between all the
parties, including in particular parties that have had to rely on other
Microsoft documents released before and alongside the WSPP program, and
therefore should form part of the normative description of the
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
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the cifs-protocol