Updated dmserver protobuf to include autoenrollment messages.

Updated dmserver protobuf to include autoenrollment messages.

BUG=chromium-os:23063
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=112185

[Joao da Silva, 2011-11-16 14:36:06]

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/1/chrome/browser/policy/proto/dev...
File chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/1/chrome/browser/policy/proto/dev...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto:273: //optional
SessionStatusReportRequest session_status_report_request = 5;
These comments are placeholders for the field IDs that are already assigned but
haven't been merged to this proto yet. They won't be included in the final patch
set.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/1/chrome/browser/policy/proto/dev...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto:312: //optional
SessionStatusReportResponse session_status_report_response = 7;
These comments are placeholders for the field IDs that are already assigned but
haven't been merged to this proto yet. They won't be included in the final patch
set.

[Joao da Silva, 2011-11-29 18:32:14]

Please review, thanks!

[binzhao, 2011-11-30 01:09:12]

lgtm

[binzhao, 2011-11-30 01:11:07]

+Raymond

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM, <binzhao@google.com> wrote:

> lgtm
>
>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.**org/8486013/<http://codereview.chromium.org/8486...
>



-- 
regards,
Bin

[Mattias Nissler (ping if slow), 2011-11-30 09:31:47]

LGTM with a nit.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/4001/chrome/browser/policy/proto/...
File chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/4001/chrome/browser/policy/proto/...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto:294: // for
enterprise enrollment. Unlike the other requests, this request is not
That's not quite accurate. The device may be eligible, but not require
autoenrollment.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/4001/chrome/browser/policy/proto/...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto:302: optional int64
modulus = 2;
FYI: I still don't see why we ever would want to use non-power-of-two moduli, so
I don't see why you want to do the extra work to support this. That's just for
the record, if Bin and you feel comfortable with it, I won't make a scene.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/4001/chrome/browser/policy/proto/...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto:317: repeated bytes
hashes = 2;
FYI: In previous discussions, we had played with the idea to allow hard and soft
auto-enrollment, the former more or less forcing enrollment while the latter
would just prompt. If we want this, we need a second list of hashes here. No
need to put that in now though.

[Joao da Silva, 2011-11-30 10:07:59]

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/4001/chrome/browser/policy/proto/...
File chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/4001/chrome/browser/policy/proto/...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto:294: // for
enterprise enrollment. Unlike the other requests, this request is not
On 2011/11/30 09:31:48, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> That's not quite accurate. The device may be eligible, but not require
> autoenrollment.

Rephrased.

http://codereview.chromium.org/8486013/diff/4001/chrome/browser/policy/proto/...
chrome/browser/policy/proto/device_management_backend.proto:302: optional int64
modulus = 2;
On 2011/11/30 09:31:48, Mattias Nissler wrote:
> FYI: I still don't see why we ever would want to use non-power-of-two moduli,
so
> I don't see why you want to do the extra work to support this. That's just for
> the record, if Bin and you feel comfortable with it, I won't make a scene.

Please don't make a scene :-)