On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:33:02AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Good Morning, > > > > We posted this [1] blog today and want to open a mailing thread to garner > > feedback, field questions and get some thoughts from the Community on > > the approach that we in Community Platform Engineering (CPE) are taking. > > > > [1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/application-service-categories-and-community-handoff/ > > > > Two things that concern me at this time: <snip> > > > Ipsilon — Ipsilon is our identity provider. It supports multiple > > authentication protocol (OpenID 2.0, OpenID Connect, SAML 2.0, …) > > and multiple backends (FAS, LDAP/FreeIPA, htpasswd, system accounts…). > > While it was originally shipped as a tech preview in RHEL it no longer is and > > the team working on this application has also been refocused on other projects. > > We would like to move all our applications to use OpenID Connect or SAML 2.0 > > (instead of OpenID 2.0 with (custom) extensions) and replace FAS with an > > IPA-based solution, which in turn allows us to replace ipsilon by a more > > maintained solution, likely Red Hat Single Sign On. The dependencies > > are making this a long term effort. We will need to announce to the community > > that this means we will shut down the public OpenID 2.0 endpoints, > > which means that any community services that use this protocol need > > to be moved to OpenID Connect as well. > > There are two issues to unpack here: > > 1. We use a weird custom backend and custom protocol extensions. > > This should definitely be replaced if it makes sense. It’s more urgent > now that RHEL 6 is going EOL next year, and FAS 2 is still a Python > 2.6 application. FAS 3 *would* have fixed it, but interest by the FAS > developers died a while ago… > > Naturally, the replacement is equally in a poor state, but may have > some legs someday: https://github.com/fedora-infra/noggin > > 2. Ipsilon development was only considered important as part of being > tech preview in RHEL and now it’s not. > > There are some major problems here. First of all, Ipsilon development > has been gated by a single person. That person also seems to have > trouble making time to review pull requests. There has been interest > from the broader community about using and contributing to Ipsilon, > since unlike Keycloak, it is written in an accessible language > (Python). > > Getting Ipsilon to Python 3 would be enough for me to get started on > bootstrapping some of the other interested parties onto Ipsilon, and > hopefully give us a more sustainable community long-term. I guess my question to all this is... Why? What's the goal? If Keycloak does everything Ipsilon does and more, what's the point of keeping a dead project alive instead of contributing to the active, lively one? If there really, truly is interest from the broader community, why not do a friendly fork, get all the work you want in, and see what the original maintainer thinks? For Fedora, though, if FreeIPA can replace FAS, or GitLab can replace Pagure, or a generic notification service exists somewhere to replace FMN, or whatever, why spend time on such things we could be spending developing the few unique tools we need to continue building the Fedora distribution? Stopping along the way to build an identity and access management platform isn't going to make the distribution better. - Jeremy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
