Rick,
 
I agree that R2 adds new functionalities. As we all know R2 is an updated 
release of the Windows Server OS and it is not mandatory. My opinion is that R2 
has some new cool features and my favorite is DFS-R!!! 
 

Update Releases 
(http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/roadmap.mspx)


Update releases integrate the previous major release with the latest service 
pack, selected feature packs, and new functionality. Because an update release 
is based on the previous major release, customers can incorporate it into their 
environment without any additional testing beyond what would be required for a 
typical service pack. Any additional functionality provided by an update would 
be optional and thus not affect application compatibility or require customers 
to re-certify or re-test applications.

 
As you can see above, Microsoft states "Because an update release is based on 
the previous major release, customers can incorporate it into their environment 
without any additional testing beyond what would be required for a typical 
service pack"
 
The integration on member servers is easy and straightforward and requires no 
testing as nothing will be enabled. The integration on DCs and the use of 
several component (print connections, DFS-R, etc) demand an extension of the AD 
schema to version 31 so the new objects and attributes are available for "print 
connections", DFS-R and Unix Identity Management. Some components also demand 
the installation and use of the new "Microsoft .NET Framework v2"..
 
With this in mind, and for those who want to implement R2, my opinion is to 
still test and plan it. Especially for the new framework and the schema update. 
By the way: the R2 schema update does not change the PAS.
 
What are your thoughts on this?
 
Cheers,
#JORGE#
 
 
________________________________

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick Kingslan
Sent: Wed 8/3/2005 11:24 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] R2 Functionality - (Was Biggest AD Gripes)



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/ 

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