X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C82C8D.A01D017B@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:26:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C82C8D.A01D017B"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:26:56 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A894@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A85A@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
Thread-Index: AcgsArMN/7im2pNFRfiOjtxmGLR1qAAcaiWQAAB62YAAAnXwYAABvRgwAAAsDDAAATMQEA==
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A489@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A7D2@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A7E0@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A834@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A855@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E06B7A85A@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
From: "Brian DeForest" <brian.deforest@onstor.com>
To: "Joshua Goldenhar" <joshua.goldenhar@onstor.com>,
	"Ron Bhanukitsiri" <ronb@onstor.com>,
	"dl-Design Review" <dl-designreview@onstor.com>
Cc: "Narayan Venkat" <narayan.venkat@onstor.com>,
	"Jonathan Goldick" <jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C82C8D.A01D017B
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Setting a share NAME$ to invisible is redundant and unnecessary and will
not be allowed (to avoid confusion).   The MS convention for the past N
years has been that a share NAME$ is a "special"
hidden/invisible/non-browsable share by definition.  We're adding the
capability to make a share NAME (no trailing $) be
hidden/invisible/non-browsible.   The terms hidden and invisible are
synonymous.  Existing shares NAME (no trailing $) are not
hidden/invisible unless converted to hidden/invisible/non-browsable via
'cifs share modify'.  There is no need to rename the share. =20

> _____________________________________________=20
> From: 	Joshua Goldenhar =20
> Sent:	Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:46 PM
> To:	Ron Bhanukitsiri; dl-Design Review
> Cc:	Narayan Venkat; Jonathan Goldick
> Subject:	RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
>=20
> I like the name "invisible" - I don't want to change the name - I just
> see cases where you might want a share to be named bla$ AND it be set
> to "invisible".
>=20
> -Josh
>=20
> Josh Goldenhar
> Phone: 408 963 2408, Cell: 408 547 7693
>=20
> _____________________________________________
> From: Ron Bhanukitsiri=20
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:42 PM
> To: Joshua Goldenhar; dl-Design Review
> Cc: Narayan Venkat; Jonathan Goldick; Ron Bhanukitsiri
> Subject: RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
>=20
> Nope, cifs show command never show SHARE$ as hidden.  Hidden is
> not enforced by the server as you have pointed out.
>=20
> Well I'm opened to a better name :-).  I picked invisible to match the
> PVR :-).
>=20
> Ron B[ee]
>=20
> _____________________________________________
> From: Joshua Goldenhar=20
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:57 PM
> To: Ron Bhanukitsiri; dl-Design Review
> Cc: Narayan Venkat; Jonathan Goldick
> Subject: RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
>=20
> I had seen Jonathan's earlier comments and had agreed at the time. But
> when you changed the nomenclature to "invisible" and I re-read the
> definitions it occurred to me (and still does) that these are two
> separate features.
>=20
> In other words, the cifs show command could now report a share as
> "hidden", "invisible" or "hidden, invisible" as they have distinct
> definitions.
> I agree with your comments that on new share creation, if admins want
> a share invisible it would make sense to create it with the new
> option. But for existing shares (on ONStor), or server share
> consolidation (vservers with existing share names that have '$' in
> them) you're forcing the admin to choose between not using the new
> feature or renaming existing shares.
>=20
> I think the choice to rename the functionality, change the option and
> make the definition clear removed the ambiguity that Jonathan noted
> but hopefully he'll chime in to clarify.
>=20
> -Josh
>=20
> Josh Goldenhar
> Phone: 408 963 2408, Cell: 408 547 7693
>=20
> _____________________________________________
> From: Ron Bhanukitsiri=20
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:44 AM
> To: Joshua Goldenhar; dl-Design Review
> Cc: Ron Bhanukitsiri; Narayan Venkat
> Subject: RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
>=20
> Thanks Joshua for your input and feedback. =20
>=20
> Initially, we weren't placing any limitations on the hidden share
> (share with $).
> During the review, Jonathan gave this feedback:
> "Looks good to me.  Some minor notes:
> 1.	If the share ends in $ but was explicitly created with the -h
> disabled flag it would be confusing since it really is hidden.
> 2.	If the share ends in $ but was not explicitly created with the
> -h enabled flag it would be confusing if the 'cifs show' command did
> not return that it was in fact hidden."
>=20
> I considered it and happened to agree with Jonathan's point that it's
> confusing.
> Therefore, if the customer wants the share to be totally invisible,
> don't use "$".
> Furthermore, I would like to point back to the PVR that the customer
> does *not*
> seem want the invisible feature and they want to keep the $ share for
> some
> "special purpose".
>=20
> Ron B[ee]
>=20
> _____________________________________________
> From: Joshua Goldenhar=20
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:37 AM
> To: Ron Bhanukitsiri; dl-Design Review
> Subject: RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
>=20
> I like the write up but have a question about the decision to not
> allow an invisible hidden share.
> Why?
>=20
> You state it's an oxymoron scenario yet I don't think it is.
> "Hidden share" functionality is defined/enforced by the client.
> "Invisible Share" is defined/enforced by the Filer (and hence by
> extension, the administrator).
>=20
> In other words, you could have an invisible, hidden share.
>=20
> I give you this scenario:
> An admin has wanted to have some shares be non-browseable so they
> utilized the only option available, naming a share "foo$".
>=20
> Some folks have clients that let them see these shares while browsing,
> like some Linux clients, etc.
> Now we offer this feature which is really what the admin wanted in the
> first place. But because you are not allowing the "foo$" share to be
> set to invisible, the admin is forced to rename the shares if they
> want this functionality.
>=20
> My point is, since invisible shares are being enforced by the server
> and are a function that is outside of CIFS specs, why limit this
> functionality? Shares that end in '$' are just valid share names... It
> also reduces test matrix and code complexity.
>=20
> -Josh
>=20
> Josh Goldenhar
> Phone: 408 963 2408, Cell: 408 547 7693
>=20
> _____________________________________________
> From: Ron Bhanukitsiri=20
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:52 PM
> To: dl-Design Review
> Cc: Ron Bhanukitsiri
> Subject: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec
>=20
> Here's an updated version of the spec.  Please note the feature is now
> called
> "invisible share" to be more conformant with the PVR and also to avoid
> confusion with the hidden share terminology which is a Microsoft
> feature.
> <\\mightydog\software\CIFS\Invisible Share FuncSpec.doc>
>=20
> Also the CLI option has obviously changed as well.
>=20
> Ron B[ee]
>=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C82C8D.A01D017B
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional Spec</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Setting a share NAME$ =
to invisible is redundant and unnecessary and will not be allowed (to =
avoid confusion).&nbsp;&nbsp; The MS convention for the past N years has =
been that a share NAME$ is a &quot;special&quot; =
hidden/invisible/non-browsable share by definition.&nbsp; We're adding =
the capability to make a share NAME (no trailing $) be =
hidden/invisible/non-browsible.&nbsp;&nbsp; The terms hidden and =
invisible are synonymous.&nbsp; Existing shares NAME (no trailing $) are =
not hidden/invisible unless converted to hidden/invisible/non-browsable =
via 'cifs share modify'.&nbsp; There is no need to rename the =
share.&nbsp; </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">_____________________________________________ </FONT>

<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Tahoma">From: &nbsp;</FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Joshua Goldenhar&nbsp; </FONT>

<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Sent:&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:46 PM</FONT>

<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">To:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">Ron Bhanukitsiri; dl-Design Review</FONT>

<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">Cc:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">Narayan Venkat; Jonathan Goldick</FONT>

<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT>=
</B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Tahoma">RE: Updated Invisible Share =
Mini-Functional Spec</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I like the name =
&#8220;invisible&#8221; &#8211; I don&#8217;t want to change the name =
&#8211; I just see cases where you might want a share to be named bla$ =
AND it be set to &#8220;invisible&#8221;.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">-Josh</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Josh Goldenhar</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Phone: 408 963 2408, =
Cell: 408 547 7693</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">_____________________________________________<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">From:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Ron Bhanukitsiri<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Sent:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:42 PM<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">To:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Joshua Goldenhar; dl-Design Review<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Cc:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Narayan Venkat; Jonathan Goldick; Ron Bhanukitsiri<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Subject:</FONT></B><FONT =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma"> RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional =
Spec</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Nope, cifs show =
command never show SHARE$ as hidden.&nbsp; Hidden is</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">not enforced by the =
server as you have pointed out.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Well I&#8217;m opened =
to a better name</FONT> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Wingdings">J</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">.&nbsp; I picked<I> invisible</I> to match the PVR</FONT> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Wingdings">J</FONT><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Ron B[ee]</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">_____________________________________________<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">From:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Joshua Goldenhar<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Sent:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:57 PM<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">To:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Ron Bhanukitsiri; dl-Design Review<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Cc:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Narayan Venkat; Jonathan Goldick<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Subject:</FONT></B><FONT =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma"> RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional =
Spec</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I had seen =
Jonathan&#8217;s earlier comments and had agreed at the time. But when =
you changed the nomenclature to &#8220;invisible&#8221; and I re-read =
the definitions it occurred to me (and still does) that these are two =
separate features.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">In other words, the =
cifs show command could now report a share as &#8220;hidden&#8221;, =
&#8220;invisible&#8221; or &#8220;hidden, invisible&#8221; as they have =
distinct definitions.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I agree with your =
comments that on new share creation, if admins want a share invisible it =
would make sense to create it with the new option. But for existing =
shares (on ONStor), or server share consolidation (vservers with =
existing share names that have &#8216;$&#8217; in them) you&#8217;re =
forcing the admin to choose between not using the new feature or =
renaming existing shares.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I think the choice to =
rename the functionality, change the option and make the definition =
clear removed the ambiguity that Jonathan noted but hopefully =
he&#8217;ll chime in to clarify.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">-Josh</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Josh Goldenhar</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Phone: 408 963 2408, =
Cell: 408 547 7693</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">_____________________________________________<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">From:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Ron Bhanukitsiri<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Sent:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:44 AM<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">To:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Joshua Goldenhar; dl-Design Review<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Cc:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Ron Bhanukitsiri; Narayan Venkat<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Subject:</FONT></B><FONT =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma"> RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional =
Spec</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Thanks Joshua for =
your input and feedback.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Initially, we =
weren&#8217;t placing any limitations on the hidden share (share with =
$).</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">During the review, =
Jonathan gave this feedback:</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&#8220;Looks good to =
me.&nbsp; Some minor notes:</FONT>
<UL>
<OL TYPE=3D1>
<LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">If the share ends in =
$ but was explicitly created with the &#8211;h disabled flag it would be =
confusing since it really is hidden.</FONT></LI>

<LI><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">If the share ends in =
$ but was not explicitly created with the &#8211;h enabled flag it would =
be confusing if the &#8216;cifs show&#8217; command did not return that =
it was in fact hidden.&#8221;</FONT></LI>
<BR>
</OL></UL>
<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I considered it and =
happened to agree with Jonathan&#8217;s point that it&#8217;s =
confusing.</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Therefore, if the =
customer wants the share to be totally invisible, don&#8217;t use =
&#8220;$&#8221;.</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Furthermore, I would =
like to point back to the PVR that the customer does *</FONT><B><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">not</FONT></B><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">*</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">seem want the =
invisible feature and they want to keep the $ share for some</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&#8220;special =
purpose&#8221;.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Ron B[ee]</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">_____________________________________________<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">From:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Joshua Goldenhar<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Sent:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:37 AM<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">To:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Ron Bhanukitsiri; dl-Design Review<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Subject:</FONT></B><FONT =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma"> RE: Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional =
Spec</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I like the write up =
but have a question about the decision to not allow an invisible hidden =
share.</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Why?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">You state it&#8217;s =
an oxymoron scenario yet I don&#8217;t think it is.</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&#8220;Hidden =
share&#8221; functionality is defined/enforced by the client.</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&#8220;Invisible =
Share&#8221; is defined/enforced by the Filer (and hence by extension, =
the administrator).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">In other words, you =
could have an invisible, hidden share.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I give you this =
scenario:</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">An admin has wanted =
to have some shares be non-browseable so they utilized the only option =
available, naming a share &#8220;foo$&#8221;.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Some folks have =
clients that let them see these shares while browsing, like some Linux =
clients, etc.</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Now we offer this =
feature which is really what the admin wanted in the first place. But =
because you are not allowing the &#8220;foo$&#8221; share to be set to =
invisible, the admin is forced to rename the shares if they want this =
functionality.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">My point is, since =
invisible shares are being enforced by the server and are a function =
that is outside of CIFS specs, why limit this functionality? Shares that =
end in &#8216;$&#8217; are just valid share names&#8230; It also reduces =
test matrix and code complexity.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">-Josh</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Josh Goldenhar</FONT>

<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Phone: 408 963 2408, =
Cell: 408 547 7693</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma">_____________________________________________<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">From:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Ron Bhanukitsiri<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Sent:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:52 PM<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">To:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> dl-Design Review<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Cc:</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Ron Bhanukitsiri<BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma">Subject:</FONT></B><FONT =
SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Tahoma"> Updated Invisible Share Mini-Functional =
Spec</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Here&#8217;s an updated version of the =
spec.&nbsp; Please note the feature is now called</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&#8220;invisible share&#8221; to be =
more conformant with the PVR and also to avoid</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">confusion with the hidden share =
terminology which is a Microsoft feature.</FONT>

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&lt;</FONT><A =
HREF=3D"file://\\mightydog\software\CIFS\Invisible Share =
FuncSpec.doc"><U><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">\\mightydog\software\CIFS\Invisible Share =
FuncSpec.doc</FONT></U></A><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Also the CLI option has obviously =
changed as well.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Ron B[ee]</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C82C8D.A01D017B--
