> On 3 Mar 2020, at 04:32, thierry bordaz <tbordaz@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. >> * 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. >> >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
