'Re: [cifs-protocol] [EXTERNAL] [MS-DTYP] 2.5.1.1 another SDDL syntax ABNF inaccuracy - TrackingID#23'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cifs-protocol
Subject:    Re: [cifs-protocol] [EXTERNAL] [MS-DTYP] 2.5.1.1 another SDDL syntax ABNF inaccuracy - TrackingID#23
From:       Kristian Smith via cifs-protocol <cifs-protocol () lists ! samba ! org>
Date:       2023-02-04 1:00:30
Message-ID: DM6PR21MB1530C772FF9FE5CF44AE94E295D49 () DM6PR21MB1530 ! namprd21 ! prod ! outlook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks for the quick reply, and yes, the example does have more than parentheses than \
the spec requires. My guess would be that it's to provide additional clarity to see \
which operation is intended to have precedence.

I'll go ahead and close this one out.

Have a great weekend and please let us know if you come across any other \
inconsistencies.

Thanks,
Kristian

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz> 
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Kristian Smith <Kristian.Smith@microsoft.com>; cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org
Cc: Microsoft Support <supportmail@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [MS-DTYP] 2.5.1.1 another SDDL syntax ABNF inaccuracy - \
TrackingID#2302020040006024

hi Kristian,

I don't actually think I have a question about the parentheses any more.

It was just that the SDDL is parenthesis-heavy by convention, and I assumed they \
might be required more than is implied by that ABNF. However "2.5.1.3 Parentheses and \
Order of Precedence" says they are not. Examples 2 and 3 have more parentheses than \
necessary, but that is not a bad thing.

Thanks for the doc change.

Douglas

On 4/02/23 11:22, Kristian Smith wrote:
> Hi Douglas,
> 
> With regards to the "term" actually being a "cond-expr", you are 
> correct. I will submit a document change, and you'll see it propagate in a future \
> release. 
> As far as the parentheses are concerned, are you curious why the they 
> are required at the end at the end but nowhere else? Just hoping to 
> confirm the question.
> 
> cond-expr = term /
> cond-expr [wspace] ("||" / "&&" ) [wspace] cond-expr /
> (["!"] [wspace] *"(" cond-expr ")"*)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kristian
> 
> Kristian Smith
> 
> Support Escalation Engineer
> 
> Windows Open Spec Protocols
> 
> Office: (425) 421-4442
> 
> kristian.smith@microsoft.com <mailto:kristian.smith@microsoft.com>
> 
> *From:* Kristian Smith
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2023 9:58 AM
> *To:* Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>;
> cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org
> *Cc:* Microsoft Support <supportmail@microsoft.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [MS-DTYP] 2.5.1.1 another SDDL syntax ABNF 
> inaccuracy
> - TrackingID#2302020040006024
> 
> [Jeff to Bcc]
> 
> Hi Douglas,
> 
> Thanks for reaching out. I'll be looking into this ABNF issue you've presented. 
> I'll get back to you once I have more information.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kristian
> 
> Kristian Smith
> 
> Support Escalation Engineer
> 
> Windows Open Spec Protocols
> 
> Office: (425) 421-4442
> 
> kristian.smith@microsoft.com <mailto:kristian.smith@microsoft.com>
> 
> *From:* Jeff McCashland (He/him) <jeffm@microsoft.com 
> <mailto:jeffm@microsoft.com>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2023 7:32 AM
> *To:* Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz 
> <mailto:douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>>; 
> cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org <mailto:cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org>
> *Cc:* Microsoft Support <supportmail@microsoft.com 
> <mailto:supportmail@microsoft.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [MS-DTYP] 2.5.1.1 another SDDL syntax ABNF 
> inaccuracy
> - TrackingID#2302020040006024
> 
> [DocHelp to BCC, support on CC, SR ID on Subject]
> 
> Hi Douglas,
> 
> Thanks for your question. One of the Open Specifications team members 
> will respond to assist you. In the meantime, we've created case 
> 2302020040006024 to track this request. Please leave the case number 
> in the subject when communicating with our team about this request.
> 
> Best regards,*
> /Jeff M/**/^c /**/Cashland (He/him) /**| Senior Escalation Engineer/| 
> Microsoft/****Protocol Open Specifications Team *
> 
> Phone: +1 (425) 703-8300 x38300 | Hours: 9am-5pm | Time zone: 
> (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US and Canada)
> 
> Local country phone number found here: 
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsuppo
> rt.microsoft.com%2Fglobalenglish&data=05%7C01%7CKristian.Smith%40micro
> soft.com%7C9f6359c446e743cebfc608db06471117%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c
> d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638110674529892545%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi
> MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7
> C%7C&sdata=f%2Bjag7%2B3O9janjkth8LbzRcNhzzEUQ2UhypjuSGupfw%3D&reserved
> =0 
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsupp
> ort.microsoft.com%2Fglobalenglish&data=05%7C01%7CKristian.Smith%40micr
> osoft.com%7C9f6359c446e743cebfc608db06471117%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
> cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638110674529892545%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
> iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%
> 7C%7C&sdata=f%2Bjag7%2B3O9janjkth8LbzRcNhzzEUQ2UhypjuSGupfw%3D&reserve
> d=0>| Extension 1138300
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> 
> *From:*Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz 
> <mailto:douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2023 2:24 AM
> *To:* Interoperability Documentation Help <dochelp@microsoft.com 
> <mailto:dochelp@microsoft.com>>; cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org 
> <mailto:cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org> <cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org 
> <mailto:cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org>>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [MS-DTYP] 2.5.1.1 another SDDL syntax ABNF 
> inaccuracy
> 
> hi Dochelp,
> 
> I think this bit is wrong in the SDDL ABNF. We have (with irrelevant 
> bits
> omitted):
> 
> conditional-ace = ... ";" "(" cond-expr ")" ")"
> 
> cond-expr = term /
> term [wspace] ("||" / "&&" ) [wspace] cond-expr /
> (["!"] [wspace] "(" cond-expr ")")
> 
> 
> which says a conditional expression compounded with '&&' or '||' can 
> only have a simple term on the left hand side. That doesn't seem 
> right, nor is it in keeping with the text.
> 
> Not least of all, examples 2 and 3 in 2.4.4.17.9 have compound 
> expressions on either side of a central operator, like so:
> 
> (@User.smartcard==1 || @Device.managed==1) && (@Resource.dept
> Any_of{"Sales","HR"})
> 
> My belief is the example is correct and the ABNF is wrong. It should 
> probably say something  more like this:
> 
> cond-expr = term /
> cond-expr [wspace] ("||" / "&&" ) [wspace] cond-expr /
> (["!"] [wspace] "(" cond-expr ")")
> 
> 
> though that doesn't explain when you need parentheses and when you don't.
> 
> Douglas
> 

_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 