Joel

My feedback

  1. 1,315 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    153 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » SaaS Applications  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We’re continuing to investigate options for adding this support. There are technical challenges to overcome in order to make this happen. We thank you for all your valuable comments so far, and welcome any additional feedback you have on what are the most important use cases involved with these scenarios.

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  2. 59 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  3. 17 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel commented  · 

    It seems that the ability exists for all standard Azure AD roles, however, it does not exist when PIM is used in conjunction with Azure Resource roles. So hopefully the same enable/disable capability for notifications in standard Azure AD Roles can be brought to the Azure Resource roles within PIM.

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  4. 249 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  5. 70 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  Networking » Application Gateway  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  6. 838 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    44 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  7. 74 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the feedback.

    We assume that you are talking about ability to restore native backup (.bak files) taken from SQL MI to SQL Server 2017/2019.

    It’s a tough one unfortunately. Native backup contains binary data, and never been backwards compatible. E.g. you can’t restore backup from SQL 2012 on SQL 2008. Same logic applies here.

    SQL MI gets updates faster SQL Server, as soon we check-in code, it gets deployed with the next wave of updates on Azure. Same as SQL DB.
    Theoretically if you take backup of SQL MI now, and wait until SQL Server version release catch up, then you will be able to restore it.

    Can you please let us know what kind of issues with BACPAC you are encountering?

    Also, you can consider making transaction replication from SQL MI on on-prem as a way to move data around.

    Joel commented  · 

    While it is true that the DB Engine of SMI may be changing frequently...the Internal Database Version number should not be changing frequently. It would be extremely helpful if the Internal Database Version number used in SMI was coordinated with the latest Internal Database Version number used on the latest version of SQL Server On-Premise (or IaaS). This of tremendous value for folks that want to push forward into hybrid cloud, but are fearful of an inability to return back fully in tack. BACPAC and Replication are not solutions, they are half-baked work arounds. If they were solutions then there would be no need for backup to exist in SQL Server at all.

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  8. 63 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  (General Feedback) » azure.microsoft.com  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  9. 29 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  10. 32 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  11. 38 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    started  ·  3 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  12. 79 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  SQL Managed Instance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  13. 22 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Analysis Services  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  14. 8 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  API Management » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Joel supported this idea  · 
  15. 16 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel supported this idea  · 
    Joel commented  · 

    This option is absolutely critical. The role level setting can be a default, but when the assignment occurs (i.e. when the role is paired with the user/group) you should be able to override the role default and allow some users to require approval (like a user that has the need say like once a quarter) vs a user that may have the need several times a day every day.

  16. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  17. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  18. 12 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  19. 111 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel commented  · 

    This is absolutely essential for large organizations. We manage the concept of group membership centrally via AD and shouldn't have to provide AAD User Access Administrator rights and training to individuals that are very comfortable living only in AD land. We also have existing Manager Access review procedures on top of AD and should not have to re-invent these for Azure AD. If Microsoft is thinking properly...any time a user can be assigned to anything, there should always be the option to assign a group of users to the same thing.

    Joel supported this idea  · 
  20. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Joel commented  · 

    Making MFA a requirement vs a choice is not a good idea. For example, many organization federate their Azure AD authentication to a 3rd party provider like Okta for example. In such, cases, the organization may have already addressed MFA via their 3rd party authentication provider (perhaps even universally as a requirement for all users). Requiring a separate Azure MFA on top of the 3rd party MFA is just silly double MFA noise.

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base