Hi Hongwei, Thanks a lot! I suppose I got confused because 2.2.10 states: PS (FLAG_ATTR_REQ_PARTIAL_SET_MEMBER or FLAG_CR_NTDS_DOMAIN, 0x00000002) I was not sure if both flags have the same value, or the value is just for FLAG_CR_NTDS_DOMAIN.
Regards, Nadya ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hongwei Sun <[email protected]> > To: Nadezhda Ivanova <[email protected]>, Interoperability > Documentation Help <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 5:53:01 PM (GMT+02:00) Helsinki, Kyiv, Riga, > Sofia, Tallinn, Vilnius > Subject: [REG:110040646791367] : RE: [cifs-protocol] Numerical value of > FLAG_ATTR_REQ_PARTIAL_SET_MEMBER > > Nadya, > > The definition of the valid systemFlags can be found in 2.2.10 and > 2.2.11 of MS-ADTS. The numeric values of the two flags you mentioned > are: > > PS (FLAG_ATTR_REQ_PARTIAL_SET_MEMBER or FLAG_CR_NTDS_DOMAIN, > 0x00000002) 2.2.10 MS-ADTS System Flags > > CR (FLAG_ATTR_IS_CRITICAL, 0x00000001) > 2.2.11 MS-ADTS schemaFlagsEx Flags > > Please let us know if you have more questions. > > Thanks! > > Hongwei > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nadezhda Ivanova > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:07 AM > To: Interoperability Documentation Help > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [cifs-protocol] Numerical value of > FLAG_ATTR_REQ_PARTIAL_SET_MEMBER > > Hi, > I am not able to find the actual numerical value of > FLAG_ATTR_IS_CRITICAL (systemFlagsEx) and > FLAG_ATTR_REQ_PARTIAL_SET_MEMBER for systemFlags. I am working on > access checks for DRS replication and this blocks my work, so I would > appreciate a fast response... > > Regards, > Nadya > _______________________________________________ > cifs-protocol mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
