Andrew, Does this mean that you cannot duplicate the issue any more ? Can you give us some clarification at your earliest convenience ? The only information I have been using for my investigation is winxp-aduc-fail.cap attached in your original e-mail ? Is it still relevant ?
Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------- Hongwei Sun - Sr. Support Escalation Engineer DSC Protocol Team, Microsoft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 469-7757027 x 57027 ----------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bartlett Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:39 AM To: Edgar Olougouna Cc: Interoperability Documentation Help; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [cifs-protocol] RE: [Pfif] Microsoft Client tool expectatations On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 16:29 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 09:24 -0700, Edgar Olougouna wrote: > > Good morning Andrew, > > > > Thank you for your request concerning the Windows Client tool > > expectations. I have created a case for this (see info below); one > > of my colleagues will be in touch with you. > > > > SRX080908600475 - ProtoDoc 99999: [MS-ADTS]: Microsoft Client tool > > expectations > > This should probably be split into two cases. > > > > Similarly, against our current GIT tree, the Win2k3 admin pack on > > > WinXP won't launch 'Active Directory Users and Computers' against > > > Samba4. The error seems to be in response to our return value for > > > the cn=aggregate schema. > > While we still have the problem of 'how do I get past cryptic client > messages', the particular case here was easily solved by a comparative > trace with windows. It turns out that this did not solve the issue - I now can't reproduce the issue with or without this fix. Further clarification is required. > The issue is that we would include an entry: > objectClasses: ( 2.5.6.0 NAME 'top' SUP top ABSTRACT.. > > The MMC Active Directory Users and Computers snap in presumably > objected to the 'loop' this would present. The fixed entry is: > > objectClasses: ( 2.5.6.0 NAME 'top' ABSTRACT... > > Now, the new resolution I would like is for this someone to find where > this should be documented in MS-ATDS and to call out the semantics > here very carefully (that top must not be SUP 'top', despite being so > indicated in the full schema). > > Also, an indication of the semantics of modifyTimeStamp on this entry > would be worthwhile. I generate these attributes on the fly, so this > value will not normally change (even with schema updates) - but ADUC > very specifically reads this value. Does it implement a cache of some > kind, and therefore how must this change after schema updates? > > Thanks, > > Andrew Bartlett > -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
