On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 09:13 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 26.8.2016 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 11:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > >> Ie we could set both "allow" and "allow_with_time" on an object for > >> cases where the admin wants to enforce the time part only o newer > >> client > >> but otherwise apply the rule to any client. > > > > I notice that SSSD does not like it if there are multiple values on this > > attribute, but we could change this easily in older clients when we > > update them. worst case the rule will not apply and admins have to > > create 2 rules, one with allow and one with allow_with_time. > > I like the idea in general but it needs proper design and detailed > specification first. > > Given that we have to modify SSSD anyway, I would go for ipaHBACRulev2 object > class with clear definition of "capabilities" (without any obsolete cruft). > > That should be future proof and without any negative impact to existing > clients.
ipaHBACRule2 is needed anyway, it is just how it is implemented that differs, I really think we should go the accessRuleType route, I find it superior to messing with objects by ripping off structural objectclasses and replacing them. 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