On 03/18/2016 03:43 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
> On 03/18/2016 02:44 PM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
>> On 03/18/2016 10:59 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>> On 03/18/2016 10:47 AM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
>>>> On 03/18/2016 10:21 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>> On 03/17/2016 06:16 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
>>>>>> Hi list,
>>>>>> here is a link (http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Server_Roles) to WIP
>>>>>> design
>>>>>> document concerning the concept of Server Roles as a user-friendly
>>>>>> abstraction
>>>>>> of the services running on IPA masters.
>>>>>> The main aim of this feature is to provide a higher level interface
>>>>>> to query
>>>>>> and manipulate service-related information stored in dirsrv backend.
>>>>>> I have not touched the design much from the post-Devconf session,
>>>>>> mainly
>>>>>> because there are some points to clarify and agree upon.
>>>>> Initial thoughts:
>>>>> * Use Cases: these are rather vague points what you want to
>>>>> implement. In Use
>>>>> Case section, I would like to see what specific *user* use cases you
>>>>> are
>>>>> addressing, i.e. what user problems you are solving. Ideally in a
>>>>> form of a
>>>>> user story. Like here:
>>>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/User_Life-Cycle_Management#Use_Cases
>>>>> or here:
>>>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Authentication_Indicators#Use_Cases
>>>>> or here:
>>>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/External_trust_to_AD#Use_Cases
>>>> Ok I will thing of some clearer points.
>>>>>> I have the following points to discuss:
>>>>>> 1.) the design assumes that there is a distinction between roles
>>>>>> such as DNS
>>>>>> server, CA, etc. and the more specific sub-roles such as DNSSec key
>>>>>> master, CRL
>>>>>> master, etc. Now in the hindsight I think this distinction is quite
>>>>>> artificial
>>>>>> and just clutters the interface unnecessarily. We might implement
>>>>>> this kind of
>>>>>> hierarchy in the code itself but that is something the user needs
>>>>>> not be
>>>>>> aware of.
>>>>> Well, there are dependencies. A server cannot be a CRL master
>>>>> without also
>>>>> being a CA role. I assume same applies to DNSSEC master.
>>>>> I think we need to think more about distinguishing what is role,
>>>>> what is just
>>>>> an attribute of a role, etc. AD for example distinguishes roles,
>>>>> role service
>>>>> and features:
>>>>> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc754923.aspx
>>>> We will have to implement the role/subrole/unicorn hierarchy anyhow.
>>>> What I
>>>> would like to discuss is whether it is necessary to expose this
>>>> hierarchy to
>>>> the users. Consider a case when user wants to find which server is a
>>>> CA renewal
>>>> master:
>>>> ipa server-role-find "CA renewal master"
>>>> vs.
>>>> ipa server-role-find --subrole "Renewal master"
>>>> Behind the scenes, the code has to do the same thing (e.g. issue a
>>>> search using
>>>> (&(cn=CA)(ipaConfigString=enabledService)(ipaConfigString=caRenewalMaster))),
>>>> but the UX is a bit different.
>>> Well, even the LDAP structure is different in this case. CA role is an
>>> object
>>> in cn=masters, caRenewalMaster is it's property. So they will likely be
>>> different user objects too.
>>> For your example, I can image a search like that:
>>> $ ipa server-role-find "CA" --subrole "renewal-master"
>>> (for the case when you have "DNS" role also with "renewal-master"
>>> sub-role).
>>> Martin
>> I don't have a strong option about this matter.
>> Number of roles will be limited. I don't see any point in developing
>> hierarchies in CLI/API/Web UI. Simply describing the roles and their
>> dependencies in server-role help should be enough.
>> Hierarchy and dependency should be checked internally.
>> Question is how it should behave in practice. There is no example in the
>> design page. Imagine these use cases:
>> $ server-role-find
>> "CA"
>> "CA renewal master"
>> "DNS server"
>> "DNSSec Key Master"
>> ...
>> maybe is should print also description, but help might be enough.
> $ server-role-find
> ===
> Certificate Authority
> Manages certificate requests and revocation...
> (optionally list masters)
> Enabled on: master1.ipa.test, replica3.ipa.test
> ===
> DNS Server
> manages forward and reverse name resolution
> Enabled on: master1.ipa.test
> ===
> CA renewal master
> Manages automatic renewal of certificates nearing expiration
> Enabled on: replica3.ipa.test
> ...

Even though I disliked having renewal master as separate role and rather as a
property of existing CA role, this looks reasonable.

What plans do you have around the data model, that currently "CA renewal
master" and "Certificate Authority" roles are implemented completely
differently in cn=masters? (I mean LDAP entry vs. LDAP attribute) It would be
transformed during upgrade?

Also, how do you plan hiding the "services" we were not interested in seeing
(like KADMIN that Simo mentioned) from these commands?

Anyway, I think the best next step would actually be following Petr Spacek's
idea and start with designing the user interface (CLI) and all the proposed
commands that would solve the use cases Petr V. mentioned elsewhere.

That would help us assess the sanity and usability of the proposed approach.


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

Reply via email to