Re: [ldapext] LDAP Groups topic split-out

Michael Ströder <> Fri, 04 December 2015 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8586E1B2DE3 for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 02:02:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LLTU0aij1aGa for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 02:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F10F51B2F37 for <>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 02:02:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv4.stroeder.local (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.stroeder.local", Issuer " Server CA no. 2009-07" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB5051CE55; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:02:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nb2.stroeder.local (nb2.stroeder.local []) (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 86D161D29F; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:02:30 +0000 (UTC)
To: Charlie <>, ldapext <>
References: <>
From: Michael Ströder <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:02:30 +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: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms020200070302080009000608"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] LDAP Groups topic split-out
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 10:02:37 -0000

Charlie wrote:
> After reading David Foster Wallace on set theory, I wrote an RFC a
> couple years back to address the lack of a generic or globally useful
> grouping mechanism in LDAP-accessible directories.  Comments are
> welcomed.

Although you will likely claim that your I-D also describes the problem in
general you're already endorsing a particular solution. :-/

I suspect that your mixed use of values in attribute 'psetMembership' will
rather contribute to the "hodgepodge of LDAP schema" you criticize than solving

Personally I don't see a strong need for generic "ur-objects" because one can
easily define such a schema for a particular deployment with custom schema with
particular semantics.

> If you're not up for a long-read, I would recommend just reading
> "Appendix D:  Other Efforts and their Shortcomings" which explains all
> the attempts to date and how they've failed to gain traction.

I agree with some of your points therein. But you have a wild mix of true issues
on one side and bad common practice with dummy objects on the other hand.

I'd say we should:
1. fix true issues (e.g. empty-group-problem) with a new I-D.
2. Add text (implementation notes, security considerations etc.) to prevent bad

For 2. you will never find text which prevents all people to shoot themselves in
the foot.

Ciao, Michael.