Guido (and all, really)- 

You bring up a good point.  There seems to be some misconception and
misinformation (BTW, no one here is doing the misinformation - just to be
clear) around R2.

When R2 is installed (or whatever this is going to be called when released -
it may be just Windows Server 2003 Release 2 - or it might be something
else) it is really a series of modules that ADD FUNCTIONALITY.

That's key - it adds functionality.  Remember that Rights Management
Services when run on Win2k3 really changes nothing in the way that the OS
operates and communicates.  Functionality of the base doesn't change.
However, RMS adds functionality and has a very minor impact on AD - which is
not a schema change, but a Service Point addition to allow detection and
determination of what server(s) is/are running RMS.

This is really what you'll see out of R2.  ADFS (Active Directory Federation
Services) for example, is not going to make a huge change to the underlying
OS functions - nor is it going to make a big change to AD.  It's going to
provide a way to EXTEND AD into a Federated Service for Partner access/auth
to a common AuthN mechanism (and much more - but it's not important at the
moment).

The important thing is that for this release - R2 is a collection of really
valuable and cool enhancement that many, many customers have been asking
for.  However, the point is that they are plug-in modules.  It's much like
putting new rims, tires, a body kit, a stereo, lowering kit, and a fart can
on your Honda.  It's still a Honda, but you've added customized pieces to
it.  Think of R2 as these things for your Honda.  (However, you might want
R2 much more than you want a 'fart can' or a lowering kit...)

As Guido mentions - and rightfully so, the big plumbing pieces aren't coming
in until LH Server.  However, THOSE are really going to be worth waiting
for.

Rick




-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grillenmeier, Guido
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:57 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes

actually that's not the case Carlos - even after all DCs are upgraded to
R2, SYSVOL is still using the legacy FRS replication mechanism.  This
won't change before Lonhorn.

so it should stay on the list of gripes ;-)

/Guido

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carlos
Magalhaes
Sent: Dienstag, 2. August 2005 23:15
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes

* Using the new DFS-Replication mechanism in R2 for the SYSVOL

This is available AFAIK if all your servers are running R2 :P

Carlos Magalhaes

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells
Sent: 02 August 2005 09:59 PM
To: Send - AD mailing list
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes

http://www.novell.com  :o)

Bloody NetWare bigot ...

--
Dean Wells
MSEtechnology
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://msetechnology.com


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto,
Jorge de
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:06 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes

A while ago I put some AD feature thoughts in a textfile not knowing
what to
do with them at that moment

Here goes:

* Active Directory thoughts:
        * OU = security principal
        * Possibility to merge Forests
        * "Cut and paste" a domain from one forest to another
        * Domain concept:
                * Domain controller -> directory server (not specific to
a
certain domain, but hosting naming contexts)
                * Password policies not only per domain but also per OU
                * Keep domain as a replication boundary but remove the
flat
structure (prevent context login like NDS -> Aliases?)
                * Multiple replication boundaries (naming contexts) per
directory server
                * Remove domain as an entity. Forest is only entity
needed
        * Integrate file system and possible other resources into the
directory (e.g. search where security principals are used)
        * Permissioning TOP-DOWN and BOTTOM-UP (file system)
        * Delegation of Control: ability to dictate MEMBERS attribute
AND
the MEMBEROF attribute (so the possibility exists to dictate which users
can
be added to what groups)
        * Disabling sidhistory?
        * Loginscripts at container level
        * Using the new DFS-Replication mechanism in R2 for the SYSVOL

Just some thoughts. Interesting?

Cheers,
#JORGE#


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 18:25
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes

So what are everyone's biggest AD Gripes? I am not talking about gripes
about things that use AD like GPOs[1] or Exchange or NFS or anything
else
like that. I mean actual AD really missed the boat because of this that
or
the other thing.

Like 

o I dislike that when you defunct an attribute it doesn't purge the
information in the directory for that attribute.

o The fact that AD Security policy is managed through a technology
dependent
on AD and replicates both within AD and the other technology.
 
o I dislike that there is no true schema delete.

o I dislike the fact that I can't specify which branches of the tree
replicate where.

o I dislike the fact that GUIDs are represented in multiple ways in the
directory.

o I dislike the implementation of property sets especially since they
could
be so incredible awesomely cool. Specifically I dislike that an
attribute
can only be in a single property set. 

o I dislike creator/owner on SDs.

o I dislike the lack of configurable business rules.

o I dislike the fact that I can't run multiple domains on a single
domain
controller. 



Etc etc. I have more but lets see what others say. Everyone pipe up.
Let's pretend that MS will actually see this, let's further say let's
pretend MS AD Developers will see this. What would you tell them if you
were
sitting in the room with them?



   joe





[1] I do not consider GPOs to be part of AD. They are a technology that
leverages AD.

List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/


This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be
copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/



List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

Reply via email to