Andrew, Richard has left our team and I have taken the ownership of this request. In the last a few weeks, We have been actively working on updating documentation for this broad issue to improve our documentation. We will finish the update soon. I will let you know as soon as the detail is finalized.
We have scheduled a meeting between the Samba team and our documentation team to have more discussion on this issue in the Samba IOLab next month. Thanks for your patience. Hongwei -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Bartlett Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 2:41 AM To: Richard Guthrie Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] erroneous references to little-endian On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 09:42 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 09:23 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote: > > Andrew, > > > > We will continue to work to resolution on the broader issue of how > > to handle bit fields in the documentation. Your feedback is much > > appreciated there. For this specific issue, in general, for > > custom-marshaled fields you should see a bit field that follows the > > RFC convention where the high bit of the first byte to hit the wire > > is in column 0, and the low bit of the last byte to hit the wire is > > in column 31 (so that the bits are shown from left-to-right in the > > order they naturally appear over the network). > > Your two statements are inconsistent, and not consistent with what the > documentation does. Do you mean to say that I can expect the above in > future, or that you claim the documentation does the above? > > If the bits were numbers, for little-endian numbers, such that bit 0, > representing integer 1 appeared a the left (the little end), and that > the numbers in the heading increased 0..31 left-to-right, above the > value such that for it's natural natural number representation (as > indicated by the stated endianness) that value == n^2, then I would be > happy. > > > We are going back through the documentation to ensure that custom > > marshaled fields have the appropriate specification for endianness. > > Alternately, can you please point me at the RFC that indicates both > bit numbering such that (value != n^2) where n is the described bit > number, and where bits are ordered in a different order to bytes. > > Microsoft's documentation is the only place, ever, that I have seen > this insanity. I'm still unsatisfied with the situation here. Will there ever be any progress? Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Cisco Inc. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
