[cifs-protocol] MS-DNSP errata on timestamp descriptions - TrackingID#2106010040000420

[Jeff McCashland]

[Sree to BCC, support alias on CC, SR ID on Subject] 

Hi Douglas,

I will research your list, and follow up. 

Best regards,
Jeff McCashland | Senior Escalation Engineer | Microsoft Protocol Open Specifications Team 
Phone: +1 (425) 703-8300 x38300 | Hours: 9am-5pm | Time zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Local country phone number found here: http://support.microsoft.com/globalenglish | Extension 1138300
We value your feedback.  My manager is Natesha Morrison (namorri), +1 (704) 430-4292

-----Original Message-----
From: Sreekanth Nadendla <srenaden at microsoft.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:44 PM
To: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall at catalyst.net.nz>; cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org
Subject: 2106010040000420 MS-DNSP errata

Hello Douglas, thank you for you question regarding the MS-DNSP specification. We have created incident 2106010040000420 to track the investigation. One of the open specifications team member will contact you shortly.

Regards,
Sreekanth Nadendla
Microsoft Windows Open Specifications

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall at catalyst.net.nz> 
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:47 PM
To: cifs-protocol at lists.samba.org; Interoperability Documentation Help <dochelp at microsoft.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] MS-DNSP errata

hi Dochelp,

In a number of places [MS-DNSP] mentions timestamps in to form of "the number of seconds since 12:00 A.M. January 1, 1601". At least some of these should really speak of the "number of 100-nanosecond intervals" that we are used to dealing with.

In 3.1.4.5, in the paragraph starting "If pszZoneName points to a primary zone", EntombedTime is described as a number of seconds, contrary to descriptions elsewhere (2.2.2.2.4.23).

Same thing in 3.1.1.1.1, under "DsTombstoneInterval", EntombedTime is compared with a number of seconds.

Also in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.2.1 "Time Zone Secured" is described as the number of seconds since 1601. I don't know if that is correct or not.


This is not really a question, unless EntombedTime is really sometimes in seconds and sometimes in 10-millionths of seconds, in which case I will have lots of questions.

Douglas