[PATCH] docs: clarify wording of smb3 protocol description
Michael Adam
obnox at samba.org
Wed Jul 13 20:50:50 UTC 2016
On 2016-07-14 at 08:25 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 13:50 +0200, Björn Jacke wrote:
> >
> > <listitem>
> > - <para><constant>SMB3</constant>: The same as SMB2.
> > - Used by Windows 8. SMB3 has sub protocols
> > available.</para>
> > + <para><constant>SMB3</constant>: New label of the SMB2
> > protocol rewrite with those these sub protocols:</para>
> > <itemizedlist>
> > <listitem>
> > <para><constant>SMB3_00</constant>: Windows 8
> > SMB3 version. (mostly the same as SMB2_24)</para>
>
> I'm really sorry, but this seems even less clear. What are you trying
> to say?
I have to agree that this not optimal.
> Perhaps the attached is better?
Better but see below comments:
> From 1bcbd0c3d15329f2ab027ee17b009ad611eb00e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:22:23 +1200
> Subject: [PATCH] docs: Improve NT1 and SMB3 descriptions
The 'and' suggests two patches. :-)
> <listitem>
> - <para><constant>NT1</constant>: Current up to date version of the protocol.
> - Used by Windows NT. Known as CIFS.</para>
> + <para><constant>NT1</constant>: Current up to date version
> + of the original SMB protocol.
> + Used by Windows NT and above.
I don't quite get what is 'current' and 'up to date' about SMB1...
Shouldn't we write something like:
"NT1: Original version 1 of the SMB protocol.
Used by Windows NT and above. This has largely been
deprecated by the introduction of SMB2 and SMB3."
> Also known as CIFS.</para>
Maybe:
"SMB1 was temporarily also known as CIFS, but the use
of this name is now deprecated and discouraged."
> </listitem>
>
> <listitem>
> @@ -55,8 +56,8 @@
> </listitem>
>
> <listitem>
> - <para><constant>SMB3</constant>: The same as SMB2.
> - Used by Windows 8. SMB3 has sub protocols available.</para>
> + <para><constant>SMB3</constant>: A further evolution of SMB2.
> + Used by Windows 8 and above. SMB3 has sub protocols available.</para>
This text is much more clear imho. Ack on this one.
As a separate patch, I would RB+ this part.
my 2 cents..
Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20160713/b21115c5/signature.sig>
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list