On 05/11/2015 06:44 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 11.5.2015 v 18:03 Ludwig Krispenz napsal(a):

On 05/11/2015 05:42 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 11.5.2015 16:36, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/11/2015 04:34 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 11.5.2015 v 16:29 Petr Vobornik napsal(a):
On 05/11/2015 04:13 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 11.5.2015 v 15:56 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
On 05/11/2015 03:50 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 11.5.2015 v 15:34 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
On 05/11/2015 03:18 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 6.5.2015 v 09:29 Martin Kosek napsal(a):

as already discussed in December [1], we will need to implement
domain levels
in FreeIPA 4.2 to make sure we can manage the replication
agreement by

I created a ticket for this feature [3] and linked it with
design. The
proposed scope for the feature is written in the ticket itself.
agreed he
would work on this.

The first consumer is Ludwig's topology plugin. Seeing Ludwig's
[4], I suspect he chose a different format (major/minor) for the
domain level
value, but as we discussed in [2], it will rather be a numerical
value, raised
only when needed. This is something for Tomas and Ludwig to

I am not sure if Custodia work will need this, maybe the new
ipa-replica-install would just check if Custodia is there or not
and not
on Domain Levels... we will see.

The design page does not list the actual API, but I expect it to
be very
for now, maybe just

$ ipa domainlevel-show
$ ipa domainlevel-raise NUMBER
I would think

$ ipa domain-show
$ ipa domain-set-level NUMBER

because "domain level" does not sound like an object, but
rather a
property of a "domain" object.
I think the point here was that the Domain Level is a separate
object with
just that value. So the naming seemed pretty self-explanatory and
to me.
That seems to me like an implementation detail rather than
which to model the API. (Come on, singleton object with a single
IIRC, that was the point. To have this value in a single LDAP object
other settings, so that components can simply "watch" this object or
syncrepl on it, without receiving false positives (as they would
with for
example "config-*" object).
OK, so it indeed is just an implementation detail - if it was
to watch just a single attribute of an entry, it could be stored
in more
meaningful location, but it's not, so it can't.
It is perfectly possible with SyncRepl protocol.

With using just "domain-*" we are blocking ourselves for the time
when real
"Domain" object shows up.
I don't see why it should.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion on this, except I like "set"
better than
I liked the raise more as it does not give people the hopes that
domain level
can be lowered once it was raised :-)

I like "set" because it is very explicit - "raise" not so much, it
mean "raise to specific value" or "raise by specific value" and maybe
other things.

+1 for domainlevel - there is no and most likely won't be a singleton
domain object, hence domainlevel is the object.
But there is: api.env.basedn aka the suffix.

In other words: what
domain? I would argue that the feature should be called a "realm
because there is only one realm but multiple domains in the realm.
That depends on the definition of "domain" :-) But I think "realm
level" does
indeed fit better in our Kerberos-centric world.
Maybe. But we try to hide Kerberos specifics... I think the idea was
to make it
sound similar to AD's Domain Functional Level.
So call it 'functional level' :-)
This thread is about implementing the design provided in Simo's "domain
level" design page, we had discussed this before, do we really need to
iterate it again ?

I don't think anyone is actually suggesting to make changes to the design. Right?
well, the design all over talks about domain levels, the entry is specified as cn=domainlevel, .... so the discussion is questioning the design

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to