[cifs-protocol] [REG: 115022012423941] connecting MS-DRSR 220.127.116.11 IDL_DRSReplicaSync and ReplicateNCRequestMsg
edgaro at microsoft.com
Fri Feb 20 15:23:34 MST 2015
I will research this and follow-up.
From: Matt Weber
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:55 PM
To: Andrew Bartlett
Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org; MSSolve Case Email
Subject: [REG: 115022012423941] connecting MS-DRSR 18.104.22.168 IDL_DRSReplicaSync and ReplicateNCRequestMsg
[Case number in subject]
[Casemail to cc]
[Dochelp to bcc]
Thank you for your request. Case number 115022012423941 has been created for this inquiry. One of our team members will follow up with you soon.
Matt Weber | Microsoft Open Specifications Team
From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet at samba.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:19 PM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help
Cc: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
Subject: connecting MS-DRSR 22.214.171.124 IDL_DRSReplicaSync and ReplicateNCRequestMsg
MS-DRSR 4.1.23 IDL_DRSReplicaSync has some great pseudo-code in 126.96.36.199 Server Behavior of the IDL_DRSReplicaSync Method. However, it finishes with this text statement:
Perform a replication cycle as a client of IDL_DRSGetNCChanges.
188.8.131.52.1) to form the first request and send it. If not DRS_MAIL_REP in r.options, then wait for the response, process it, send the next request (section 184.108.40.206), etc., until the replication cycle is complete.
This is great, but I need to know what parameters are passed in to
In particular, I'm trying to chase down an issue in our RODC case, where the SPECIAL_SECRETS_PROCESSING flag isn't being sent by our RODC to GetNCChanges. I know how I *could* force it, but I don't know if it should always be forced, for example. For example, should the server sending DsReplicaSync tell the RODC to request it, or should the RODC add it (and remove WRIT_REP) on it's own?
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
More information about the cifs-protocol