Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet

From: Douglas Steen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:36:39 -0600

Does anyone know if this is simply another symptom of the problem MS has
with its wininet.dll?  It sounds very similar: connection won't close, etc.
They've got another web access interface now, in msxml3.dll, which
specifically avoids use of wininet (see
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q237/9/06.ASP), and they've
acknowledged it to be a problem.

So, if this is the same problem, we can at least know that it has been
recognized, and they know it needs to be fixed.

    Douglas R. Steen
    [email-masked]
    Drag-and-Drop Web Content Management
    http://www.eKeeper.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerbert Orasche [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:53 AM
To: Stewart Hersey; Peter Pierrou; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet

I have forgotten to mention that the fatal hang of the whole desktop happens
with MS Office 2000 SR-1. However, all other versions of WebFolders (there
are quite many of them: Office, IE, OS etc.) also don't shut down the TCPIP
connection, which can lead to interesting effects with some WebDAV servers
like IIS.

I am still not sure, if we are talking about the same bug. After the user
has pressed the Cancel button there are no more flying folders. Users won't
even notice that the connection is still open until they have Office SR-1.

Gerbert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Stewart Hersey
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 5:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Peter Pierrou; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: FW: WebFolders on Intranet
>
>
> Ahhh! You have just described the FFFFOO effect (Files Flying
> Folder to Folder Out of Oblivion).
>
> We've experienced a similar kludge, although the error is rarely fatal.
>
> I expect Microsoft to post the patch on Windows Update once it's
> been compiled...
>
> S. Matthew Hersey
> President and CTO
> Newma Net Works, Inc.
> www.newma.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerbert Orasche" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Pierrou" <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:50 AM
> Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Peter Pierrou
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:36 AM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: FW: WebFolders on Intranet
> >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Interested in getting in touch with any companies that are
> > using WebDAV on
> > > their Intranet.
> We are also using our own product within our Intra-/Extranet. However, we
> have been stumbling quite often over bugs in Microsoft's WebDAV client
> implementation. Only two weeks ago we have escalated a WebFolder
> problem to
> Redmond and hope to get a hotfix soon. It was about freezing Windows
> Explorer (and thus the whole desktop) whenever a user hits the
> Cancel button
> while uploading. The MS WebDAV client then stops to upload but the TCPIP
> connection stays open. Our server runs into a timeout, IIS
> doesn't (at least
> not within reasonable time)
>
> cu
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Gerbert Orasche, Senior Software Engineer
> Hyperwave Software R&D, Albrechtgasse 9/2, A-8010 Graz, Austria
>
> Tel: ++43-316-820918-11
> Fax: ++43-316-820918-99
> mailto:[email-masked]
> http://www.hyperwave.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
>
>

---

From: "Stewart Hersey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:57:30 -0800

Has side-by-side functionality left your production server in an unstable state?

Then read:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q278/6/36.asp

What you have described is not a "problem", Douglas.

"This behavior is by design."
                    Microsoft

Here is the list of bugs that have been fixed in Version 3.0:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/xml/general/msxml_buglist.asp

What's New in the Microsoft XML Parser Version 3.0 Release:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/xmlparser.asp

From What's New threads:

-Help , serverXMLHTTP fail

I use serverXMLHTTP to load a remote xml file, but it always tell me "access denied", here is my asp code: set XmlDoc =
Server.CreateObject("MSXML2.ServerXMLHTTP") XmlDoc.open "GET", "http://www.xml101.com/examples/simple.xml", false,"",null
XmlDoc.send why, anybody can help me?
- Anonymous 20 Nov 2000

-Re: Help , serverXMLHTTP fail
Use proxycfg.exe to configure proxy, can be downloaded somewhere in microsoft.com...
- Anonymous 23 Nov 2000

What's New says (NOTE* Fix for Gerbert's XML/WebDAV on Intranet issue):

"For servers running on an intranet, it's necessary to run the proxycfg.exe utility to configure WinHTTP to access HTTP and HTTPS
servers through a proxy server. For example, you would use the proxycfg.exe utility as part of the deployment and installation
process of an application that uses the ServerXMLHTTP component to access WinHTTP."

proxycfg.exe can be downloaded here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/468/Proxycfg.exe
For more information, please refer to the readme included with the download.

Finally, the most recent MS threads regarding WinHTTP:

-Is there any more information on WinHTTP. I would like to adjust the winHTTP Registry settings programmatically but can't find any
information on the structure of the key.
- Anonymous 20 Dec 2000

-Re: WinHTTP
No, at this time, the format of the WinHTTP proxy settings stored in the registry is not documented and cannot be changed
programmatically.
- Anonymous 29 Dec 2000

Happy New Year!

smh

S. Matthew Hersey
Newma Net Works
www.newma.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Steen" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet

    Douglas R. Steen
    [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerbert Orasche [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:53 AM
To: Stewart Hersey; Peter Pierrou; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet

Gerbert

---

From: "Gerbert Orasche" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:20:36 +0100

Stewart,

I am not completely sure, if I have understood your mail properly. As far as
I understand the WebDAV standard, it does not specifiy if the client
connection is done via a proxy or not. For me that means that a client has
to support any type of HTTP connection (also if MS is writing the client)
and if it can not handle direct HTTP it's simply a bug. Any TCPIP client
closes a connection, if the operation should be cancelled or at least sends
something saying: "Uh, I can't go on". MS WebDAV client does simply nothing.

Using a proxy is not really an option in many cases (I am still not sure if
it would help with our problem), because NTLM authentication does not work
via proxies. Again the WebDAV standard does not mention which HTTP
authentication method has to be used (which is not a flaw at all - WebDAV
shouldn't have to bother with authentication). Earlier versions of MSs
WebDAV client had severe problems with basic authentication, thus it worked
well only in combination with NTLM (or perhaps Digest) authentication.

What are you all thinking about this? Our customers pay a whole lot to
Microsoft to use their OSes and Office packages. (We are talking about
companies like Siemens, UBS etc.) Thus MS should provide a WebDAV
implementation, which is usable (at least with their own IIS WebDAV
implementation). First answer we got from all MS support levels was: "Why
don't you use Frontpage extensions?" which renders the IETF standard
useless.

Gerbert

> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:58 AM
> To: Douglas Steen
> Cc: [email-masked]

[...]

> "For servers running on an intranet, it's necessary to run the
> proxycfg.exe utility to configure WinHTTP to access HTTP and HTTPS
> servers through a proxy server. For example, you would use the
> proxycfg.exe utility as part of the deployment and installation
> -Is there any more information on WinHTTP. I would like to adjust
> the winHTTP Registry settings programmatically but can't find any
> No, at this time, the format of the WinHTTP proxy settings stored
> in the registry is not documented and cannot be changed
> programmatically.
> - Anonymous 29 Dec 2000
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> smh
>
> S. Matthew Hersey
> Newma Net Works
> www.newma.net
>
>

---

From: "S.Matthew Hersey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:14:02 -0800

I'm interested in seeing exactly how Microsoft Support phrased that answer, in context...
Could you forward that message to the list, or cut and paste the section you've quoted.
...wondering how FPX would be used, and whether this would cause some security issue.

Stewart Hersey
www.newma.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Douglas Steen" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 7:43 AM
Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet

It is not too surprising that the current versions have intractable
problems; releasing first-version code that works but not quite in all cases
is pretty standard -- and not only for Microsoft.  Honestly, I give them a
lot of credit for implementing the standard at all; I know of no other
company their size who has put WebDAV in both their flagship server (W2K)
and flagship client (Office2K) products.

However, the response "Why don't you use FrontPage extensions?" does worry
me.  Is this just ignorance of WebDAV from the support staff (which wouldn't
surprise me), or does it show a larger disregard for the protocol from
within Microsoft?  FrontPage extensions and WebDAV are -- in many respects
-- duplicate work.  If MS is dropping WebDAV in favor of FrontPage
extensions, or some other standard even, it could spell doom for a protocol
that has been (to say the least) widely ignored by the technical community.

Does anyone -- particularly from inside Microsoft -- care to comment on
this?  I'd really like some assurances, especially if they are backed up
with facts, that Microsoft is intending to fix these problems and to
continue to support the WebDAV protocol.

    Douglas R. Steen
    [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerbert Orasche [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 3:21 AM
To: Stewart Hersey; Douglas Steen
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet

Stewart,

Gerbert

[...]

---

From: "Gerbert Orasche" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:12:03 +0100

Stewart,

Before I start, I want to make very clear that I highly appreciate
Microsoft's efforts to implement WebDAV. A very important point of
Hyperwave's philosophy is to stay as open as possible to open standards.
Because of a lack of them before WebDAV had been invented we have developed
our own proprietary protocols (as many others, e.g. Frontpage), which has
pinned users down to use proprietary clients (or APIs) to use several
functionalities (at least for things doing a bit more than NFS or SMB).

The support incidence was done in German, so I am not sure if it really
helps a lot to cite it in here. (You can use Bablefish, but prepare for
quite funny outputs due to the complexity of German sub-sentencing). I
really do hope that citing will not lead to any actions from MS, however,
there were no statements from MS support considering non-disclosure.

Wie reagieren Ihre Web Folder mit aktivierten Server Extensions auf
Ihrem IIS bzw. Apache Server? (Microsoft bietet die Server Extensions
auch fur Apache Server an).
Sollte das Problem auch bei Ihnen durch die Server Extensions gelost
sein, konnen diese bei Ihnen eingesetzt werden ?
Wenn nein, was spricht dagegen ?

These questions are about if the problem occurs with Frontpage Extensions
(FPX) too, if we can use FPX, if so why we do not want to use FPX.

After the "escalation office" has acknowledged the incidence as a client bug
(with "highest probability") we have received a request for "political
impact" for fixing the bug:

mir wurde von unserer Eskalationsstelle bestatigt, da? es sich bei Ihrem
Problem hochstwahrscheinlich um einen Client-Fehler handelt. Da die
sofortige Beseitigung Ihres Problems von Seiten unserer
Entwicklungsabteilung fur Microsoft einen gewissen Aufwand bedeutet,
benotige ich zur Rechtfertigung gegenuber der Eskalationsstelle einen
sogenannten "political impact" von Ihnen. Dieser beinhaltet folgende
Fragen:

1) Wieviele Client-Rechner sind von dem Problem betroffen ?
2) Welcher finazielle Schaden ensteht bei Ihnen, wenn das Problem nicht
gefixt wurde ?
  (Bitte Verlust in DM angeben)
3) Welcher Nachteil ensteht, wenn auf Ihren Servern die Frontpage Server
Erweiterungen doch installiert wurden ?

Question 3 is about disadvantages of installing FPX. So it was quite clear
to me that the fast and painless problem solution would have been to use
FPX. We have stated quite a number of times that this is no alternative for
us (since MS has not provided us with FPX for Hyperwave Information Server
and FPX is no open standard).

Gerbert

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of S.Matthew Hersey
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:14 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Douglas Steen
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "S.Matthew Hersey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:28:37 -0800

Thank you for sharting those comments with us, Gerbert.

Since my great-grandmother was born in Austria, I was lucky enough to enjoy a certain exposure to the German language in my early
youth. Interesting...

BTW I mistakenly referred to Microsoft (R) Front Page (R) Server Extensions as FPX (in my haste), and I stand corrected by Sean
Lyndersay, who has inadvertantly pointed out to me that I should have used FPSE.

We have had post-installation Intranet permissions issues with FPSE, on Apache for UNIX(R) System V Release 4.0. In a nutshell,
there were folders in the directory tree with ownership by various individuals, and after installing FPSE, we discovered that a
recursive chown had set all ownerships to root.

We've been using Microsoft (R) Front Page (R) as a Web Publishing client interoperating with Web Folders for the better part of
Y2K. Although Microsoft(R) Office 2000(R) integrates WebDAV management into the FP client (somebody correct me, again, if this
comment is too far off base), our version management remains as a combination of RCS and CVS (for binaries).

A less-kludgy WebDAV integration would save us some major time and effort in versioning our Web content via command line, both
Internally and Externally. As both a Microsoft (R) Front Page (R) user and evangelist, and a father of two and four year old
girls, I would appreciate the release of this development on many levels.

Cheers from sunny California,

Stewart Hersey
Certainty Solutions
(formerly GNAC)
www.crtnty.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerbert Orasche" <[email-masked]>
To: "S.Matthew Hersey" <[email-masked]>; "Douglas Steen" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:12 AM
Subject: RE: FW: WebFolders on Intranet

Stewart,

Gerbert

---

From: "S.Matthew Hersey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:51:58 -0800

Gerbert,

Ok I tried to read between the lines here (zwischen den Zeilen lesen), and concluded that there actually has been some
confirmation or recognition by MS of some major  FPSE issue below:

Now I understand why you asked whether I had escalated our FPSE recursive chown Unix kludge to MS...
i.e., what percentage of reported errors would justify an increase of momentum towards a service release to correct
FPSE bugs at once?

Did you reply to MS with the figures representing the loss incurred by your company due to downtime?

Just curious.

;-)

Stewart