On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote: > Dne 27.5.2015 v 15:54 Simo Sorce napsal(a): > > On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 15:47 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >> Dne 27.5.2015 v 15:43 Simo Sorce napsal(a): > >>> On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 13:57 +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ipa config-mod --enable-kdcproxy=TRUE > >>>>>> ipa config-mod --enable-kdcproxy=FALSE > >>>> > >>>> I don't like this approach, as it is completely inconsistent with > >>>> every > >>>> other optional component. There should be *one* way to handle them > >>>> and > >>>> there already is one, no need to reinvent the wheel. > >>> > >>> Sorry Jan, but this is really the correct approach. > >> > >> I don't think so. > >> > >>> > >>> We want a boolean in LDAP to control whether the IPA Domain allows > >>> proxying or not, the code is embedded in the overall framework and has > >>> no need for explicit install/uninstall unlike the CA or DNS components. > >> > >> There is a boolean for every other component/service as well. If you > >> want to add new API to manipulate the boolean, fine, but it should be > >> done in a generic way that works for other components as well. > > > > This is the same as: > > ipa config-mod --enable-migration=TRUE > > > > Why is it a problem ? > > This is a switch to enable the migrate-ds plugin. I think it's hardly > fair to compare it to a whole new component which provides a new service > to the outside world.
Well, this is the problem, I guess there is a perception issue. The KDC Proxy is basically nothing more than adding a new protocol to the KDC. It doesn't really do anything special but getting packets on HTTPS and sending them to the KDC over TCP. SO I think that for this specific case the KDC Proxy really is comparable to migration mode (actually simpler than migration). > > This is not a separate service. > > How is it not a separate service? If it's installed, MS-KKDCP is > provided to the outside world, and if it's not installed MS-KKDCP is not > provided to the outside world. If the migration plugin is installed the service is provided, if it is not installed it is not provided, it is conceptually the same. Yes there is code involved, but we plan to have the proxy always provided. There is no plan to have it as a removable component, you can only enable or disable it, like for migration. > How is this different from, say, DNS? > (Besides implementation details, such as what protocols or how many > daemons it uses - think about IPA as a black box for a moment.) It is completely different in size and scope, the KDCProxy really is just an enabler to reach the KDC over a different protocol, it is not a whole new protocol and service. In the end it is a matter of perspective, I think most of the people that have been dealing with it think it is much like migration and not an entire new service like DNS. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code