Re: [cifs-protocol] [REG:111080976529107] RE: Behavior explanation on subtree delete control behavior with iscriticalsystemobject

2011-11-15 Thread Matthieu Patou
Hongwei, I also noticed that the paragraph 3.1.5.5.7.2 didn't mention this in the current version of MS-ADTS that I downloaded today. Will this information be added to the document ? Thanks. Matthieu. On 22/08/2011 18:52, Hongwei Sun wrote: Matthieu, Yes, you are right. Additionally

[cifs-protocol] DNS partition creation

2011-11-15 Thread Matthieu Patou
Hello Dochelp, Today I made a couple of replication tests with a very old provision of samba that has been upgraded, the fact that it's an old version means that some attribute are not correct or not 100% coherent as they are now with recent version of samba. Replication seems to be more or

Re: [cifs-protocol] [REG:111080976529107] RE: Behavior explanation on subtree delete control behavior with iscriticalsystemobject

2011-11-15 Thread Hongwei Sun
Matthieu, The following change has been made to the section 3.1.5.5.7.2 of MS-ADTS. It will appear in the next public release of MS-ADTS on MSDN. Section 3.1.1.5.5.7.2 (Tree-delete Constraints) -- The second bullet, which has been changed as follows: Before: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: [cifs-protocol] DNS partition creation

2011-11-15 Thread Sebastian Canevari
Hi Matthieu, Thanks for your question. Someone from our team will contact you shortly. Regards, Sebastian Sebastian Canevari | Escalation Engineer | US-CSS Developer Support Core (DSC) Protocol Team P +1 469 775 7849 One Microsoft Way, 98052, Redmond, WA, USA http://support.microsoft.com -

[cifs-protocol] highest_usn and tmp_highest_usn in highwatermark < max usn sent in getcchanges

2011-11-15 Thread Matthieu Patou
Hello Dochelp, In my quite old provision it turned out that the instanceType for the root DN of the schema partition (CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC= ...) had a wrong value (old provision, bad knowledge of all AD stuff, so we made what we thought was good). In a getncChanges reply from a Win

Re: [cifs-protocol] highest_usn and tmp_highest_usn in highwatermark < max usn sent in getcchanges

2011-11-15 Thread Sebastian Canevari
Hi Matthieu, Thanks for your question. Someone from our team will contact you shortly. Regards, Sebastian Sebastian Canevari | Escalation Engineer | US-CSS Developer Support Core (DSC) Protocol Team P +1 469 775 7849 One Microsoft Way, 98052, Redmond, WA, USA http://support.microsoft.com -

[cifs-protocol] [REG: 111111582582159] highest_usn and tmp_highest_usn in highwatermark < max usn sent in getcchanges

2011-11-15 Thread Edgar Olougouna
[Dochelp to bcc] [Adding case number in subject] Matthieu, I will investigate this and follow-up. Thanks, Edgar -Original Message- From: Sebastian Canevari Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:55 PM To: m...@samba.org; Interoperability Documentation Help; cifs-proto...@samba.org; p...@tr

[cifs-protocol] [REG: 111111580301298 ] DNS partition creation

2011-11-15 Thread Tarun Chopra
Hi Matthieu Thanks for reporting the issue. I am investigating it and will follow up soon. Thanks Tarun -Original Message- From: Sebastian Canevari Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:17 PM To: m...@samba.org; Interoperability Documentation Help; p...@tridgell.net; cifs-proto...@samba.o