Good morning Tridge! Since Hongwei is out of the office, I have created case
SRX091112600056 to track our work against your question about rDN size /
deleted object rDN.
I expect to be able to begin work on this tomorrow, and will keep you updated!
Regards,
Bill Wesse
MCSE, MCTS / Senior Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM
8055 Microsoft Way
Charlotte, NC 28273
TEL: +1(980) 776-8200
CELL: +1(704) 661-5438
FAX: +1(704) 665-9606
-Original Message-
From: Hongwei Sun
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:56 PM
To: 'tri...@samba.org'
Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org; h...@highlandsun.com; Edgar Olougouna; Sebastian
Canevari
Subject: RE: limits on rDN size in AD ?
Tridge,
The RDN of Deleted Objects container is a little different from the normal
RDN. The following information in MS-ADTS 3.1.1.5.5 describes the composition
of RDN for objects in Deleted Object container:
The RDN of the object is changed to a delete-mangled RDN-an RDN that is
guaranteed to be unique within the Deleted Objects container. If O is the
object that is deleted, the delete-mangled RDN is the concatenation of O!name,
the character with value 0x0A, the string DEL:, and the dashed string
representation ([RFC4122] section 3) of O!objectGUID.
It looks like to me that for the Delete Objects container, the size
constraint should be dependent on the combination of the each sub component.
Since I am out of office, I will ask one of my team member to investigate and
confirm the behavior.
Thanks !
-Original Message-
From: tri...@samba.org [mailto:tri...@samba.org]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:58 PM
To: Hongwei Sun
Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org; h...@highlandsun.com
Subject: RE: limits on rDN size in AD ?
Hi Hongwei,
We're back to the old question of rDN size limits again!
I just got a DRS replication reply from w2k8-r2 with a CN that has a length
larger than 64. So I suspect that things are a bit more complex than what we'd
discussed before.
The object was:
CN=89532b80-09fe-445e-afef-965c0d7f7d15\0ADEL:462902b4-1824-4f02-8956-9f934f64fa01,CN=Deleted
Objects,CN=Configuration,DC=vsofs8,DC=com
which gives a length of 80.
Are we perhaps supposed to interpret the \0 as a termination character for the
purposes of this length constraint? (note that this is a \ followed by a 0, not
a nul byte).
Or perhaps deleted objects are special in their constraints in some way?
Cheers, Tridge
___
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@cifs.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol