Re: [ldapext] A more radical approach to 2307

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Fri, 04 December 2015 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42B91A0032 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:09:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04vqBrRaa232 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:09:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1199F1A0022 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:09:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv4.stroeder.local (unknown [10.1.1.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.stroeder.local", Issuer "stroeder.com Server CA no. 2009-07" (verified OK)) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C86431CF3A; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 20:09:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nb2.stroeder.local (nb2.stroeder.local [10.1.1.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by srv4.stroeder.local (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C91F21D662; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 20:09:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: Andrew Findlay <andrew.findlay@skills-1st.co.uk>, ldapext@ietf.org
References: <20151204180003.GK3643@slab.skills-1st.co.uk>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=c3=b6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <5661F30C.3030604@stroeder.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:09:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151204180003.GK3643@slab.skills-1st.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms070208060604070703040500"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/24gTp-iNIAHKIPCMvo-5vecD8AU>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] A more radical approach to 2307
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 20:09:56 -0000

Andrew Findlay wrote:
> RFC2307, 2307bis and DBIS all start from the NIS/YP/files-in-etc model
> and represent the data in LDAP with varying degrees of fidelity.
> Is this actually a good idea? I rather think not.

Yepp. RFC 2307bis should be splitted.

> The resulting set of attributes and classes would be *much* smaller than
> the 2307 set. Some whole categories could just vanish, e.g.:
> 
> 	All the shadow password stuff (draft-behera is difficult enough
> 	and we don't need to duplicate its function on the client side)

Yes, 'shadowAccount' is already regarded deprecated.

> 	memberUid (we really *dont* need a POSIX-specific way to
> 	represent groups, and the syntax of memberUid does not even
> 	match that of uid)

That's the only thing we might want to consider to keep because of
backwards-compability to existing client implementations.

> 	Most of the less-used NIS-map attributes and classes could be
> 	hived off into separate documents, or even dumped in favour of a
> 	generic structural lookup table with explicit case ignore/case
> 	sensitive semantics.

It might be worth to preserve some of the stuff but really in a separate generic
document.

Ciao, Michael.