Skip to content

Conversation

@sowjanya365-zz
Copy link
Contributor

Issue - "fill in the blank" assignments - Description has been updated now.

Issue - "fill in the blank" assignments - Description has been updated now.
@opbld32
Copy link

opbld32 commented Sep 22, 2019

Docs Build status updates of commit 607baab:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
docset/winserver2012r2-ps/nettcpip/Get-NetTCPSetting.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

Note: If you changed an existing file name or deleted a file, broken links in other files to the deleted or renamed file are listed only in the full build report.

@o0nj
Copy link
Contributor

o0nj commented Sep 24, 2019

@nenonix @JohanFreelancer9 Copy editing is needed for this PR. Thanks.

@o0nj
Copy link
Contributor

o0nj commented Sep 24, 2019

@dariomws306 @get-itips @tseward

Peer review needed for this PR. Thanks.

@dariomws
Copy link
Contributor

I think here you should use the same description that you can find in the next article for AutoReusePortRangeStartPort:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/nettcpip/get-nettcpsetting?view=win10-ps

Also, please respect the italic format for the words DynamicPortRangeStartPort and DynamicPortRangeNumberOfPorts under AutoReusePortRangeNumberOfPorts description.

@get-itips
Copy link
Contributor

Agree with @dariomws306

{{Fill AutoReusePortRangeNumberOfPorts Description}}
Specifies the number of ports for the auto-reuse port range, which is a port range used for local ephemeral port selection by outbound TCP connections for which either SO_REUSE_UNICASTPORT has been set on the socket, or for which connect() has been called without calling bind() on the socket.
If you specify 0, the auto-reuse feature is disabled and ephemeral ports are drawn instead from the dynamic port range as specified by DynamicPortRangeStartPort and DynamicPortRangeNumberOfPorts, even if SO_REUSE_UNICASTPORT is set on a socket.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
If you specify 0, the auto-reuse feature is disabled and ephemeral ports are drawn instead from the dynamic port range as specified by DynamicPortRangeStartPort and DynamicPortRangeNumberOfPorts, even if SO_REUSE_UNICASTPORT is set on a socket.
If you specify 0, the auto-reuse feature is disabled and ephemeral ports are drawn instead from the dynamic port range as specified by _DynamicPortRangeStartPort_ and _DynamicPortRangeNumberOfPorts_, even if SO_REUSE_UNICASTPORT is set on a socket.

Copy link
Contributor

@JohanFreelancer9 JohanFreelancer9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy Review - please italicize as indicated.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 25, 2019

Also agree with Agree with @dariomws306

Review suggestions are updated now.
@sowjanya365-zz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @dariomws306 @tseward

I've updated the document with the suggested modifications. Kindly review. Thank you.

@opbld31
Copy link

opbld31 commented Sep 25, 2019

Docs Build status updates of commit 81b00d2:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
docset/winserver2012r2-ps/nettcpip/Get-NetTCPSetting.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

Note: If you changed an existing file name or deleted a file, broken links in other files to the deleted or renamed file are listed only in the full build report.

@dariomws
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good now.

Good work!

@o0nj o0nj added the Sign off The pull request is ready to be reviewed and merged by PubOps label Sep 30, 2019
@rjagiewich rjagiewich added In review PubOps is reviewing the pull request and removed Sign off The pull request is ready to be reviewed and merged by PubOps labels Sep 30, 2019
@rjagiewich
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @e0i @msbemba, per the same comment we made in #1343, we have been merging with master before pushing to live. Can we get this into master first? It looks fine to merge otherwise.
cc @dstrome
thanks! -Rebecca

@rjagiewich rjagiewich added Back to submitter The pull request didn't pass the review criteria and has been returned to the writer for updates and removed In review PubOps is reviewing the pull request labels Sep 30, 2019
@dstrome
Copy link
Contributor

dstrome commented Sep 30, 2019

@e0i @msbemba - We only accept PRs to the master branch so this PR is being closed without merging. Please submit a new PR against the master branch. Thanks.

@dstrome dstrome closed this Sep 30, 2019
@o0nj o0nj mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Back to submitter The pull request didn't pass the review criteria and has been returned to the writer for updates

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants