On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:25 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote: > Andrew, > > Thank you for the feedback. I wanted to provide you with a status > update at this time. We have completed our investigation and will be > updating the documentation to reflect that NRPC allows RPC to > negotiate the endianess on fields with the exception of a subset of > byte arrays which NRPC handles explicitly. We will keep the > identifying text for those fields in which NRPC explicitly sets the > endianess.
Indeed. That will provide very useful information. If at all possible, rather than just retaining the text, these should be called out *very* explicitly, as they would need to be handled as manual code, or using mechanisms like Samba's subcontext/represent_as IDL extension. Wording like 'unlike the remainder of this protocol, ____ always appears little-endian, as it does not appear in the IDL directly, and therefore is not handled by the RPC masharalling layer or it endianness negotiation'. > We are working to correct the documentation at this time and once the > final changes are complete I will send you the updated NRPC > documentation. Please let us know if you have any further > comments/questions. Only that a search should be conducted over all other IDL based protocols for similar errors. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
