Tridge,

   I checked the definitions of these bit fields ,comparing with the MS-DRSR 
document.  The following is what I found.

   1.  0x00200000 is  DRSUAPI_DRS_NEVER_SYNCED , which means that sync is never 
completed successfully.  This bit is observed on wire, but not defined in the 
bit table in 5.39 DRS_OPTIONS.   I will file a request to add this bit to the 
document.

   2. DRSUAPI_DRS_SPECIAL_SECRET_PROCESSING should be  0x00400000, instead of 
0x00800000 as indicated in your definition as well as the bit table. Bit SS 
should be in bit field #22.   I will also file a request to get this corrected 
in the document. 

   3.  There is one field defined in the bit table in the document but it is 
not shown in your definition. Please check it.   
   
                DRSUAPI_DRS_SYNC_URGENT    = 0x00080000         (Bit SU   field 
#19) 
   
   I will also forward your question regarding the numbering of the sections to 
the documentation team.  I will let you know their response.  

Thanks!

Hongwei
   


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:23 AM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: CAR: DRS option bits

Hi,

I'm still working on our DRSR DsGetNCChanges implementation. One
puzzle I've hit is related to MS-DRSR 5.39 DRS Options. I'm receiving
replication requests from a w2k8-R2 machine with the replication flags
(ulFlags) set to 0x00200074. The bit 0x00200000 is one of the 'X' bits
in section 5.39, so I guess it is either an undocumented bit or the
bitfield is incorrectly labelled in the docs.

Given the complexity of decoding WSPP bitfields, here is my decode of
it for you to check:

                DRSUAPI_DRS_ASYNC_OP                  = 0x00000001,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_GETCHG_CHECK              = 0x00000002,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_ADD_REF                   = 0x00000004,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_SYNC_ALL                  = 0x00000008,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_DEL_REF                   = 0x00000008,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_WRIT_REP                  = 0x00000010,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_INIT_SYNC                 = 0x00000020,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_PER_SYNC                  = 0x00000040,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_MAIL_REP                  = 0x00000080,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_ASYNC_REP                 = 0x00000100,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_IGNORE_ERROR              = 0x00000100,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_TWOWAY_SYNC               = 0x00000200,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_CRITICAL_ONLY             = 0x00000400,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_GET_ANC                   = 0x00000800,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_GET_NC_SIZE               = 0x00001000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_LOCAL_ONLY                = 0x00001000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_SYNC_BYNAME               = 0x00004000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_REF_OK                    = 0x00004000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_FULL_SYNC_NOW             = 0x00008000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_NO_SOURCE                 = 0x00008000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_FULL_SYNC_PACKET          = 0x00020000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_REF_GCSPN                 = 0x00100000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_SPECIAL_SECRET_PROCESSING = 0x00800000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_SYNC_FORCED               = 0x02000000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_DISABLE_AUTO_SYNC         = 0x04000000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_DISABLE_PERIODIC_SYNC     = 0x08000000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_USE_COMPRESSION           = 0x10000000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_NEVER_NOTIFY              = 0x20000000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_SYNC_PAS                  = 0x40000000,
                DRSUAPI_DRS_GET_ALL_GROUP_MEMBERSHIP  = 0x80000000

as you can see, 0x00200000 doesn't seem to exist. Can you please let
me know what this bit means? Can you also please check the other bits
to make sure they are right?

btw, I notice that MS-DRSR 5.37 got renumbered to 5.39 between the
August and September docs. Is this sort of renumbering going to be
frequent? We're putting comments in our code referring to section
numbers, and that is not much use if they change frequently. Perhaps
we should use section names?

Cheers, Tridge

PS: In case anyone is curious, the program I use to decode WSPP
bitfields is available here:

  http://samba.org/ftp/unpacked/junkcode/wspp_bits.c

it is very rough, but it's somewhat better than being poked in the eye
by a horrendous bitmap every time you open a WSPP doc

_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol

Reply via email to