This article could stand to be shortened and have better organization.

This article has non-encyclopedic tone in places. It might benefit from having more section headings inserted so it looks less like a large lump of text. I think it should be reviewed by someone with an understanding of these weird Microsoft protocols.

Looks like a job for User:Jareth/Desk Please accept or reassign to me. Stewart Adcock 09:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wading in. Looks like more detail and sectioning would solve most of the articles problems. Time to pull out the old reference manuals. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closing request. Article ended up being a major re-write to remove Microsoft POV, which is funny, since this isn't actually something developed by them. Also removed stupid sys-admin comments and other general tone problems. Added more details to history and services. Added references and see also sections. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closed. Thanks Jareth, this article is one of the better ones now - a big improvement. Stewart Adcock 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]