On Tue, 24 May 2016, Petr Spacek wrote:
Speaking of certs, should we introduce a aliases for host entries to avoid
the
need of fake hosts?
These 'fake hosts' are as good as aliases, even better, because they
allow us to have full control over who can manage them.


I do not see how this is different from any other object which has managedBy
attribute. It is not a special property of host.
We have managedBy handling in hosts and services specifically to allow
certificate issuing on behalf of another entity.

I'm still not convinced that 'we historically do it this way' is good enough
justification for using fake host objects instead of tailored aliases.
I'm not sure it is good to add that. Note that host objects can be used
to provide a lot more than just mere aliases:
- they can have services associated, with both Kerberos keys and
  certificates
- they can be used to target HBAC rules against them which will be
  extremely useful when we'll get Authentication Indicators management
  in place

Having "fake" host objects is also crucial for clustered services.

--
/ Alexander Bokovoy

--
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

Reply via email to