[389-devel] Re: Thoughts on swapping to rfc2307bis.ldif by default

On 3/2/20 7:24 AM, William Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As you may know, I'm currently working on a migration utility to help move from other ldap servers to 389-ds. Something that I have noticed in this process is that other servers default to rfc2307bis.ldif [0] by default. As part of the migration I would like to handle this situation a bit better. It's likely not viable for me to simply plaster rfc2307bis into 99user.ldif as part of the migration process, so I want to approach this better.
>
> rfc2307 and rfc2307bis are incompatible schemas that redefine the same OIDs with new/different meanings. Some key examples:
>
> * posixGroup in rfc2307 only requires gidNumber, rfc2307bis requires cn and gidNumber.
Is not it the opposite ?
> * ipServiceProtocol, ipHostNumber, ipNetworkNumber and nisMapName change from "sup name" to "syntax 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15". sup name is also syntax 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 so this channge is minimal.
> * posixGroup and posixAccount change from structural to auxillary in rfc2307bis (allowing them to be combined with person or nsAccount).
Right but for 389-ds the structural requirement is not enforced, so it
should not be a problem
>
> Objectively, rfc2307bis is the better schema - but as with all proposals like this, there is always a risk of breaking customers or compatibility.
I agree on both :)
>
> I'm wondering what would be a reasonable course of action for us to move to rfc2307bis by default. My current thoughts:
>
> * have rfc2307bis vs rfc2307 as an option to dssetup so we use the correct schema in the setup.
> * default the setup option to rfc2307bis
> * Tests for handling both setup options
> * Upgrades of the server should not affect the rfc2307 vs rfc2307bis status
> * A dsctl tool to allow changing between the rfc2307/rfc2307bis.
>
> Thoughts? Concern? Ideas? Comments?
It would be interesting to have a complete list of the differences. at
the moment with the listed differences I think 2307bis would support
2307 entries. In addition, 2307bis looks to be a superset of 2307 so
that it would be replicated in a mmr topology.

Because of some bug,  99user.ldif will contains all overridden
definitions not the only new/changed one.

The idea of a dsctl tool looks good. It could be to create a task that
check all entries conform a schema. If all entries conform 2307bis we
could replace the default 2307 schema file with the 2307bis.
>
>
> [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
>
> —
> Sincerely,
>
> William Brown
>
> Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
> SUSE Labs
> _______________________________________________
> 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org