On 07/20/2016 10:37 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 10:17 -0400, Ben Lipton wrote:
On 07/20/2016 06:27 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 16:20 -0400, Ben Lipton wrote:
Hi,

I have updated the design page
http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Automatic_Certificate_Request_Gene
rati
on/Mapping_Rules
with my plan for implementing user-configurable rules for mapping
IPA
data into certificate requests. In brief: we will use Jinja2 for
templating. Data rules (which map individual data items) and
syntax
rules (which group them into certificate fields) will both be
snippets
of Jinja2 markup. The formatting process will be as follows:
1. Syntax rules will be rendered using Jinja2. Data rules (rule
text,
not rendered) will be passed as the datarules attribute.
2. Rendered syntax rules will be processed by the Formatter class
for
the selected CSR generation helper (e.g. openssl or certutil).
The
formatter combines these partial rules into a full template for
the
config.
3. The template will be rendered using Jinja2. Relevant data from
the
IPA database will be available in the context for this rendering.
4. The final rendered template will be returned to the caller,
labeled
with its function (e.g. a command line or a config file).

Are there any comments or objections to this approach? Here's an
example
to show what it might look like in practice.

Example data rules:
email={{subject.email}}
O={{config.ipacertificatesubjectbase}}\nCN={{subject.username}}

Example syntax rule:
subjectAltName=@{% section %}{{datarules|join('\n')}}{%
endsection %}

Example composed config template:
[ req ]
prompt = no
encrypt_key = no

distinguished_name = {% section
%}O={{config.ipacertificatesubjectbase}}
CN={{subject.username}}{% endsection %}

req_extensions = exts

[ exts ]
subjectAltName=@{% section %}email={{subject.email}}{% endsection
%}

There's a lot more information about the thinking behind this at
http://blog.benjaminlipton.com/2016/07/19/csr-generation-templati
ng.h
tml
if you're interested, as well.
Nice work Ben,
it's been really nice to be able to follow your notes on the blog
post,
one question remains lingering in my head, why jinja2 ?
I know that engine relatively well as I used it in ipsilon, so I am
not
questioning the choice just asking why specifically jinja2 and not
something else, potentially language agnostic.

Simo.
Honestly, my reasoning didn't go very far beyond that it seems to be
widely used and is compatible with python, which is the language
where
the implementation is taking place (in the IPA RPC server). I
thought
about using the built-in python format strings or creating a simple
domain-specific language, but the likelihood of wanting the built-in
text processing features (join, replace, maybe even for loops)
seemed
high, and I didn't want to reimplement those features.

Will the additional package dependency be a problem?
I am more concerned a out the ability to process the data (which I
guess is stored in LDAP) by another client, or in the CLI.
Other than that the dependency does not concern me too much provided
jinja2 templating is stable and has some guarantee that it will be
supportable long term.

If that is not guaranteed it is a problem, we cannot easily swap out
one language for another once data is stored and used by the server.
So the most important consideration for me is whether we are locking
ourselves into something that will be hard to deal with later or not.

Should the jinja2 project fail by the wayside next year would we be
able to easily replace it with another engine without changing the
templates as stored ?

Simo.

Ah, ok, I understand the concern. For now, the plan is that the server will do all the text processing, so I don't really forsee a need for any other client to read the mapping rules from LDAP. However, it's true that templates written in jinja2 would probably need at least minor changes to be compatible with another templating engine. (Same goes for any other choice - a lot of these engines seem to have very similar, but not exactly compatible, syntax). I don't really know how to judge the long-term viability of the jinja2 project, though it seems to be recognized by lots of projects (ansible[1], openstack[2], flask[3], even django[4] which has its own templating engine).

In any case, if the team prefers it, I'd be comfortable going with a more minimal DSL that only has the features we know we need. It might slightly limit the types of certs that can be generated, but that can be iterated on. But it would be another thing to design, build and maintain. Let me know what you think.

Ben

[1] http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/playbooks_variables.html#using-variables-about-jinja2
[2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-July/012016.html
[3] http://flask.pocoo.org/docs/0.11/templating/
[4] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/topics/templates/#django.template.backends.jinja2.Jinja2

--
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