smb://

[Welsh, Armand]

Workgroup should be unnecessary, because the workgroup is not part of the
tree, or the path if you will.  The workgroup is a logical grouping, but a
single machine can participate in more than one, and the machine is
addressable w/o the workgroup at all... The only place a workgroup comes in
is to browse the workgroup, so then it might look like....

(from Christopher R. Hertel)

   smb://<workgroup>/
        -or-
   smb://[<server>/[service/[path/][file/]]]
 
   <server>  :== [[ntdomain;]user[:password]@]<srvname>[:port]
 
   <srvname> :== <NBTname> | <DNSname> | <IP>
 
   <NBTname> :== NetBIOS-name [.scope]
   <DNSname> :== hostname [.domain]
   <IP>      :== nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn

-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: Allen, Michael B (RSCH) [mailto:Michael_B_Allen at ml.com]
-> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:31 PM
-> To: Samba Technical
-> Subject: RE: smb://
-> 
-> 
-> 
-> 
-> > -----Original Message-----
-> > From:	Michael Sweet [SMTP:mike at easysw.com]
-> > Sent:	Thursday, December 28, 2000 7:26 PM
-> > To:	Christopher R. Hertel
-> > Cc:	Allen, Michael B (RSCH); Samba Technical
-> > Subject:	Re: smb://
-> > 
-> > "Christopher R. Hertel" wrote:
-> > > ...
-> > > Then I think we have reached consensus.  Somewhat informally:
-> > > 
-> > >   smb://[<server>/[service/[path/][file/]]]
-> > > 
-> > >   <server>  :== [[ntdomain;]user[:password]@]<srvname>[:port]
-> > > 
-> > >   <srvname> :== <NBTname> | <DNSname> | <IP>
-> > > 
-> > >   <NBTname> :== NetBIOS-name [.scope]
-> > >   <DNSname> :== hostname [.domain]
-> > >   <IP>      :== nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn
-> > > ...
-> > 
-> > This looks good.  The only addition I would make (if it makes any
-> > difference) is to generalize the "ntdomain" field to be an NT
-> > domain or workgroup, not just the NT domain.
-> > 
-> 	Umm, did I miss something? What happend to "workgroup#" ?
-> 
-> 	Mike
-> 
->