On 3/3/20 4:12 AM, William Brown wrote:
>
>> On 3 Mar 2020, at 11:18, William Brown <wbrown@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3 Mar 2020, at 04:32, thierry bordaz <tbordaz@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>> I was reading the schema as I was reading this.
> I need to apologise for being so short in this answer! Thierry was correct in this case.
>
> Here is the full set of differences between the two:
>
> uidNumber: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> gidNumber: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> gecos: +EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 -SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> homeDirectory: +EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match
> loginShell: +EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match
> shadowLastChange: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> shadowMin: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> shadowMax: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> shadowWarning: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> shadowInactive: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> shadowExpire: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> shadowFlag: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> memberUid: +EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match
> memberNisNetgroup: +EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match SUBSTR caseExactIA5SubstringsMatch
> nisNetgroupTriple: +EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
> ipServicePort: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> ipServiceProtocol: +SUP name -SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> ipProtocolNumber: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> oncRpcNumber: +EQUALITY integerMatch
> ipHostNumber: +SUP name -SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> ipNetworkNumber: +SUP name -SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> ipNetmaskNumber: +EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 -SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> macAddress: +EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 -SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> bootParameter: +EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match
> nisMapName: +SUP name -SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> nisMapEntry: +EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match SUBSTR caseExactIA5SubstringsMatch
>
> + attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.28 NAME 'nisPublicKey' DESC 'NIS public key' EQUALITY octetStringMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 SINGLE-VALUE )
> + attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.29 NAME 'nisSecretKey' DESC 'NIS secret key' EQUALITY octetStringMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 SINGLE-VALUE )
> + attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.30 NAME 'nisDomain' DESC 'NIS domain' EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 )
> + attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.31 NAME 'automountMapName' DESC 'automount Map Name' EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match SUBSTR caseExactIA5SubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 SINGLE-VALUE )
> + attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.32 NAME 'automountKey' DESC 'Automount Key value' EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match SUBSTR caseExactIA5SubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 SINGLE-VALUE )
> + attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.33 NAME 'automountInformation' DESC 'Automount information' EQUALITY caseExactIA5Match SUBSTR caseExactIA5SubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 SINGLE-VALUE )
>
> posixAccount:
> shadowAccount:
> posixGroup: +AUXILLARY -MUST cn STRUCTURAL
> ipService:
> ipProtocol:
> oncRpc:
> ipHost: - MAY o $ ou $ owner $ seeAlso $ serialNumber +MAY userPassword
> ipNetwork: -MUST cn +MAY cn
> nisNetgroup:
> nisMap:
> nisObject:
> ieee802Device: -MUST cn MAY description $ l $ o $ ou $ owner $ seeAlso $ serialNumber
> bootableDevice: -MUST cn MAY description $ l $ o $ ou $ owner $ seeAlso $ serialNumber
> nisMap: +OID 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.9 -OID 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.13
>
> + objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.14 NAME 'nisKeyObject' SUP top AUXILIARY DESC 'An object with a public and secret key' MUST ( cn $ nisPublicKey $ nisSecretKey ) MAY ( uidNumber $ description ) )
> + objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.15 NAME 'nisDomainObject' SUP top AUXILIARY DESC 'Associates a NIS domain with a naming context' MUST nisDomain )
> + objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.16 NAME 'automountMap' SUP top STRUCTURAL MUST ( automountMapName ) MAY description )
> + objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' SUP top STRUCTURAL DESC 'Automount information' MUST ( automountKey $ automountInformation ) MAY description ) ## namedObject is needed for groups without members
> + objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.5322.13.1.1 NAME 'namedObject' SUP top STRUCTURAL MAY cn )
>
>
>
>>>> * 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
>> You know, that's probably actually the best thing I've heard all day. It makes this problem much easier.
> Looking at the differences above, while we don't have to worry about the structural changes, I'm concerned about some of the reductions in some values MAY/MUST sets. That could cause some unexpected behaviour.
>
> A possibility is making a rfc2307bis-compat.ldif instead that allows the MAY of everything in rfc2307, but is based on rfc2307bis as the base. For example, allowing "MAY description $ l $ o $ ou $ owner $ seeAlso $ serialNumber" on ieee802Device and bootableDevice. That would make it forward compatible, and actually quite seamless to upgrade. If we wanted we could consider formalising it to a draft rfc given that's what rfc2307bis is (a draft rfc).
>
> Thoughts?
Sorry missed the end of the email !
Yes I think it is a good approach, deliver what we can that does not
break existing deployment.
For the remaining part of 2307bis we create a diagnostic/healthcheck
tool that gives a go/no-go to apply a full 2307bis definition.
>>>> 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.
>> Right. I'll get a list of all the differences, and knowing that structural isn't enforced does make things easier - a lot easier. It may be less disruptive to swap to 2307bis by default if that's the case.
>>
>>> 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.
>> Yeah, a task could help here too.
>>
>>>>
>>>> [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
>> —
>> 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
> —
> 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
No comments:
Post a Comment