Re: LDAP work at IETF...

Mark R Bannister wrote:
> On 27/01/2015 22:14, Michael Ströder wrote:
>>> I think if people
>>> started looking deeper into the DBIS internet drafts,
>> I've looked into your drafts. But it differs very much from what I'm after. We
>> had this discussion before: IMO netgroups must die, die, die...
> 
> This contradicts your earlier assertion that clients are hard-coded.  In the
> same vein, clients are hard-coded to use netgroups, ergo netgroups cannot
> "die, die, die".

No contradiction, since IMO one can easily avoid using netgroups completely.

With my approach the ACLs on the LDAP server sort out what clients can
actually see. Therefore you get the flexible access control without the client
having to enforce e.g. login access control locally based on netgroups.

> Rather than attempting to kill off something that is used extensively, and has
> actually proved to be very useful in large UNIX/Linux estates (if a bit
> clunky), I've embraced them, rationalised them, defined them in a neater and
> queryable format, and complemented them with netservices.

I'd avoid them and convert access control rules based on netgroups into
another schema and let the LDAP server's ACL work through the data.

> Apart from netgroups, which you are not a fan of, how else does DBIS differ
> from what you're after?

My main objective is that not the client system evaluates all the stuff. The
client system should not see data not usable on the system. The client system
acts as a dumb RFC2307(bis) and sudo-ldap client. Of course the client system
still enforces file access permissions etc. locally.

Ciao, Michael.

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext