Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 05:53 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 05:35 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 17:18 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 05:03 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 04:59 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 04:46 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? Good point! It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. The DNS mess is unfixable, unless Petr you volunteer to backport code to change the behavior of the DNS based on the domain level, if that's the case then you can tie old behavior to level 0 and new behavior to level = 1, but I do not think you want to do that given we already have "level 0" servers that sport the new code and changed the data in the di
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 05:35 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 17:18 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 05:03 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 04:59 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 04:46 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? Good point! It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. The DNS mess is unfixable, unless Petr you volunteer to backport code to change the behavior of the DNS based on the domain level, if that's the case then you can tie old behavior to level 0 and new behavior to level = 1, but I do not think you want to do that given we already have "level 0" servers that sport the new code and changed the data in the directory, so let's just ignore DNS for the purpos
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 17:18 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > On 05/28/2015 05:03 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: > > On 05/28/2015 04:59 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > >> On 05/28/2015 04:46 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > > Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > >> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > > Hello, > > > > it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > > actually be > > number 2, not 1. > > > > We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree > > and I > > believe > > that it is not a good idea to have two places which say > > 'version 1' > > but and > > actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > > level 1) > > > > Patch is attached. > > > > > > > Hello, > The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the > initial > version of > the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will > be > written in > dse.ldif) > I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate > itself if the > DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 > then > activate > itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > > Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > > thanks > thierry > >>> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > >>> regardless. We > >>> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > >>> updates etc. I > >>> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain > >>> Level > >>> support > >>> for that anyway. > >>> > >>> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > >>> unused, 2 is > >>> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > >>> avoid. > >> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply > >> seems > >> easier to > >> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > >> developers) > >> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > >> > >> Code-wise it is just an integer. > >> > >> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > >> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one > >> integer > >> to test > >> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > >> domain > >> level). > > +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not > > 0, > > because > > 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > > anymore, > > right? > Good point! > > >>> It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. > >>> You still > >>> have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support > >>> the new > >>> DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain > >>> Levels - > >>> i.e. have Domain Level 0. > >>> > >>> As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > >>> benefits... > >> I would argue that it actually helps. > >> > >> If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support > >> the new > >> DNS semantics. > >> > >> If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) > >> and > >> it is > >> a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to > >> debugging. > > First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > > a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > > > > I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > > have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > > version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > > have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > > level comes o
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 05:03 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 04:59 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 04:46 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? Good point! It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. The DNS mess is unfixable, unless Petr you volunteer to backport code to change the behavior of the DNS based on the domain level, if that's the case then you can tie old behavior to level 0 and new behavior to level = 1, but I do not think you want to do that given we already have "level 0" servers that sport the new code and changed the data in the directory, so let's just ignore DNS for the purpose of this discussion, except for nothing that once we finally switch to level 1 then all servers must
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 16:59 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > On 05/28/2015 04:46 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > >> On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > > On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >>> Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > > On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > >> On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > >>> actually be > >>> number 2, not 1. > >>> > >>> We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and > >>> I believe > >>> that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version > >>> 1' but and > >>> actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > >>> level 1) > >>> > >>> Patch is attached. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Hello, > >> The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the > >> initial > >> version of > >> the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be > >> written in > >> dse.ldif) > >> I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate > >> itself if the > >> DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > >> If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 > >> then activate > >> itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > >> > >> Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > >> > >> thanks > >> thierry > > My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > > regardless. We > > already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > > updates etc. I > > do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain > > Level support > > for that anyway. > > > > So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > > unused, 2 is > > the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > > avoid. > I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems > easier to > bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > developers) > why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > > Code-wise it is just an integer. > > Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one > integer to test > (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > domain > level). > >>> +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not > >>> 0, because > >>> 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > >>> anymore, > >>> right? > >> Good point! > >> > > It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You > > still > > have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support > > the new > > DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain > > Levels - > > i.e. have Domain Level 0. > > > > As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > > benefits... > I would argue that it actually helps. > > If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the > new > DNS semantics. > > If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and > it is > a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to > debugging. > >>> First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > >>> a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > >>> > >>> I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > >>> have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > >>> version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > >>> have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > >>> level comes out. > >>> > >>> Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain > >>> level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need > >>> to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough > >>> review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every > >>> time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. > >>> > >>> Last but not least
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 04:46 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? Good point! It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. The DNS mess is unfixable, unless Petr you volunteer to backport code to change the behavior of the DNS based on the domain level, if that's the case then you can tie old behavior to level 0 and new behavior to level = 1, but I do not think you want to do that given we already have "level 0" servers that sport the new code and changed the data in the directory, so let's just ignore DNS for the purpose of this discussion, except for nothing that once we finally switch to level 1 then all servers must be running with the newer DNS schema and older is not supported. Ah, I almost forgot, there
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 16:40 +0200, Martin Basti wrote: > On 28/05/15 16:29, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 16:23 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: > >> Hi Simo, > >> > >> On 05/28/2015 03:52 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:39 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: > On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > > Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > >> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > > Hello, > > > > it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > > actually be > > number 2, not 1. > > > > We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree > > and I believe > > that it is not a good idea to have two places which say > > 'version 1' but and > > actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + > > domain level 1) > > > > Patch is attached. > > > > > > > Hello, > The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the > initial > version of > the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will > be written in > dse.ldif) > I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate > itself if the > DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 > then activate > itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > > Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > > thanks > thierry > >>> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > >>> regardless. We > >>> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > >>> updates etc. I > >>> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain > >>> Level support > >>> for that anyway. > >>> > >>> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > >>> unused, 2 is > >>> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > >>> avoid. > >> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply > >> seems easier to > >> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > >> developers) > >> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > >> > >> Code-wise it is just an integer. > >> > >> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > >> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one > >> integer to test > >> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > >> domain > >> level). > > +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not > > 0, because > > 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > > anymore, > > right? > Good point! > > >>> It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. > >>> You still > >>> have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already > >>> support the new > >>> DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain > >>> Levels - > >>> i.e. have Domain Level 0. > >>> > >>> As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > >>> benefits... > >> I would argue that it actually helps. > >> > >> If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support > >> the new > >> DNS semantics. > >> > >> If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) > >> and it is > >> a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to > >> debugging. > > First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > > a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > > > > I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > > have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > > version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > > have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > > level comes out. > > > > Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain > > l
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 04:59 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > > On 05/28/2015 04:46 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: >>> On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: >> On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: >>> On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: >> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: >>> On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. >>> Hello, >>> The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial >>> version of >>> the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be >>> written in >>> dse.ldif) >>> I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate >>> itself if the >>> DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. >>> If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then >>> activate >>> itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. >>> >>> Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. >>> >>> thanks >>> thierry >> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 >> regardless. We >> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async >> updates etc. I >> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level >> support >> for that anyway. >> >> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is >> unused, 2 is >> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to >> avoid. > I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems > easier to > bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > developers) > why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > > Code-wise it is just an integer. > > Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer > to test > (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > domain > level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? >>> Good point! >>> >> It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You >> still >> have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support >> the new >> DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain >> Levels - >> i.e. have Domain Level 0. >> >> As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than >> benefits... > I would argue that it actually helps. > > If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the > new > DNS semantics. > > If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and > it is > a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to > debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:46 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > > On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > > >> On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > > >>> On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > > On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > > > Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > > >> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > > >>> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > > On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > > > actually be > > > number 2, not 1. > > > > > > We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and > > > I believe > > > that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version > > > 1' but and > > > actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > > > level 1) > > > > > > Patch is attached. > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the > > initial > > version of > > the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be > > written in > > dse.ldif) > > I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate > > itself if the > > DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > > If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 > > then activate > > itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > > > > Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > > > > thanks > > thierry > > >>> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > > >>> regardless. We > > >>> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > > >>> updates etc. I > > >>> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain > > >>> Level support > > >>> for that anyway. > > >>> > > >>> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > > >>> unused, 2 is > > >>> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > > >>> avoid. > > >> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems > > >> easier to > > >> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > > >> developers) > > >> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > > >> > > >> Code-wise it is just an integer. > > >> > > >> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > > >> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one > > >> integer to test > > >> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > > >> domain > > >> level). > > > +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not > > > 0, because > > > 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > > > anymore, > > > right? > > Good point! > > > > >>> It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You > > >>> still > > >>> have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support > > >>> the new > > >>> DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain > > >>> Levels - > > >>> i.e. have Domain Level 0. > > >>> > > >>> As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > > >>> benefits... > > >> I would argue that it actually helps. > > >> > > >> If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the > > >> new > > >> DNS semantics. > > >> > > >> If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and > > >> it is > > >> a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to > > >> debugging. > > > First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > > > a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > > > > > > I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > > > have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > > > version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > > > have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > > > level comes out. > > > > > > Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain > > > level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need > > > to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough > > > review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every > > > time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. > > > > > > Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that >
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:54 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > > Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > >> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > > Hello, > > > > it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > > actually be > > number 2, not 1. > > > > We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I > > believe > > that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' > > but and > > actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > > level 1) > > > > Patch is attached. > > > > > > > Hello, > The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial > version of > the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be > written in > dse.ldif) > I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate > itself if the > DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then > activate > itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > > Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > > thanks > thierry > >>> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > >>> regardless. We > >>> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > >>> updates etc. I > >>> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level > >>> support > >>> for that anyway. > >>> > >>> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > >>> unused, 2 is > >>> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > >>> avoid. > >> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems > >> easier to > >> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > >> developers) > >> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > >> > >> Code-wise it is just an integer. > >> > >> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > >> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer > >> to test > >> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > >> domain > >> level). > > +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, > > because > > 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > > anymore, > > right? > Good point! > > >>> It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You > >>> still > >>> have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support > >>> the new > >>> DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels > >>> - > >>> i.e. have Domain Level 0. > >>> > >>> As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > >>> benefits... > >> I would argue that it actually helps. > >> > >> If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new > >> DNS semantics. > >> > >> If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and > >> it is > >> a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. > > First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > > a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > > > > I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > > have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > > version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > > have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > > level comes out. > > > > Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain > > level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need > > to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough > > review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every > > time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. > > > > Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that > > changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many > > domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according > > to the domain level. > > I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than > > once a year or so. It would be too much code churn
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 28/05/15 16:29, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 16:23 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: Hi Simo, On 05/28/2015 03:52 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:39 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? Good point! It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. Does that mean, that by default domain level must be set to 0 and only raised manually by the identity admin? Yes, the domain level is established by the first server you install, and CANNOT be raise automatically by a replica, it must be always manually raised by the admin. Moreover the code that raises *MUST* check that all server are capable of handling the new domain level or refuse to raise the level. This means all servers must publish the range of domain levels they support, a missing rang
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 16:23 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: > Hi Simo, > > On 05/28/2015 03:52 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:39 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: > >> On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > > On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >>> Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > > On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > >> On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > >>> actually be > >>> number 2, not 1. > >>> > >>> We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and > >>> I believe > >>> that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version > >>> 1' but and > >>> actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > >>> level 1) > >>> > >>> Patch is attached. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Hello, > >> The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the > >> initial > >> version of > >> the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be > >> written in > >> dse.ldif) > >> I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate > >> itself if the > >> DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > >> If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 > >> then activate > >> itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > >> > >> Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > >> > >> thanks > >> thierry > > My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > > regardless. We > > already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > > updates etc. I > > do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain > > Level support > > for that anyway. > > > > So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > > unused, 2 is > > the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > > avoid. > I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems > easier to > bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > developers) > why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > > Code-wise it is just an integer. > > Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one > integer to test > (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > domain > level). > >>> +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not > >>> 0, because > >>> 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > >>> anymore, > >>> right? > >> Good point! > >> > > It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You > > still > > have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support > > the new > > DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain > > Levels - > > i.e. have Domain Level 0. > > > > As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > > benefits... > I would argue that it actually helps. > > If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the > new > DNS semantics. > > If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and > it is > a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to > debugging. > >>> First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > >>> a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > >>> > >>> I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > >>> have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > >>> version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > >>> have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > >>> level comes out. > >>> > >>> Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain > >>> level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need > >>> to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough > >>> review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every > >>> time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. > >>> > >>> Last but not
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
Hi Simo, On 05/28/2015 03:52 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:39 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: >> On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: >> On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: >>> Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: >> On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should >>> actually be >>> number 2, not 1. >>> >>> We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I >>> believe >>> that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' >>> but and >>> actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain >>> level 1) >>> >>> Patch is attached. >>> >>> >>> >> Hello, >> The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial >> version of >> the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be >> written in >> dse.ldif) >> I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate >> itself if the >> DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. >> If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then >> activate >> itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. >> >> Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. >> >> thanks >> thierry > My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > regardless. We > already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > updates etc. I > do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level > support > for that anyway. > > So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > unused, 2 is > the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). >>> +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, >>> because >>> 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support >>> anymore, >>> right? >> Good point! >> > It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You > still > have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support > the new > DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels > - > i.e. have Domain Level 0. > > As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. >>> First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is >>> a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. >>> >>> I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version >>> have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the >>> version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you >>> have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain >>> level comes out. >>> >>> Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain >>> level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need >>> to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough >>> review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every >>> time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. >>> >>> Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that >>> changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many >>> domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according >>> to the domain level. >>> I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than >>>
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 28.5.2015 15:26, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: >> On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: >>> On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): >> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: >>> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > Hello, > > it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > actually be > number 2, not 1. > > We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I > believe > that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' > but and > actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > level 1) > > Patch is attached. > > > Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry >>> >>> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. >>> We >>> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates >>> etc. I >>> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level >>> support >>> for that anyway. >>> >>> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is >>> unused, 2 is >>> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. >> >> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems >> easier to >> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new >> developers) >> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. >> >> Code-wise it is just an integer. >> >> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another >> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to >> test >> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain >> level). > > +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, > because > 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > anymore, > right? Good point! >>> >>> It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still >>> have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the >>> new >>> DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - >>> i.e. have Domain Level 0. >>> >>> As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than >>> benefits... >> >> I would argue that it actually helps. >> >> If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new >> DNS semantics. >> >> If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it >> is >> a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. > > First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > > I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > level comes out. > > Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain > level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need > to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough > review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every > time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. > > Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that > changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many > domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according > to the domain level. > I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than > once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. > > So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will > be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 > until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we > can make full use of the topology p
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 03:52 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:39 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? Good point! It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. Does that mean, that by default domain level must be set to 0 and only raised manually by the identity admin? Yes, the domain level is established by the first server you install, and CANNOT be raise automatically by a replica, it must be always manually raised by the admin. yes, for the first time it is raised, but if you install a new replica it will be initialized from an existing replica in the domain and teh domain level is in the shared tree, so the new replica will have it automatically Moreover the code that raises *MUST* check that all server are capable of handling the new domain l
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:39 +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote: > > On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > > Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > >> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > >>> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > > Hello, > > > > it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > > actually be > > number 2, not 1. > > > > We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I > > believe > > that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' > > but and > > actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > > level 1) > > > > Patch is attached. > > > > > > > Hello, > The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial > version of > the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be > written in > dse.ldif) > I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate > itself if the > DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then > activate > itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > > Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > > thanks > thierry > >>> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 > >>> regardless. We > >>> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async > >>> updates etc. I > >>> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level > >>> support > >>> for that anyway. > >>> > >>> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > >>> unused, 2 is > >>> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to > >>> avoid. > >> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems > >> easier to > >> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > >> developers) > >> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > >> > >> Code-wise it is just an integer. > >> > >> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > >> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer > >> to test > >> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & > >> domain > >> level). > > +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, > > because > > 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > > anymore, > > right? > Good point! > > >>> It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You > >>> still > >>> have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support > >>> the new > >>> DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels > >>> - > >>> i.e. have Domain Level 0. > >>> > >>> As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > >>> benefits... > >> I would argue that it actually helps. > >> > >> If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new > >> DNS semantics. > >> > >> If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and > >> it is > >> a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. > > First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is > > a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. > > > > I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version > > have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the > > version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you > > have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain > > level comes out. > > > > Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain > > level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need > > to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough > > review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every > > time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. > > > > Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that > > changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many > > domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according > > to the domain level. > > I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than > > once a year or so. It would be too much code churn t
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 03:26 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? Good point! It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. The DNS mess is unfixable, unless Petr you volunteer to backport code to change the behavior of the DNS based on the domain level, if that's the case then you can tie old behavior to level 0 and new behavior to level = 1, but I do not think you want to do that given we already have "level 0" servers that sport the new code and changed the data in the directory, so let's just ignore DNS for the purpose of this discussion, except for nothing that once we finally switch to level 1 then all servers must be running with the newer DNS schema and older is not supported. Ah, I almost forgot, there is no "domain level for XYZ plugin", the domain level is one for the whole server, I want to make it v
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:11 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > > On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >>> Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): > On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > > On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > >> On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should > >>> actually be > >>> number 2, not 1. > >>> > >>> We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I > >>> believe > >>> that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' > >>> but and > >>> actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain > >>> level 1) > >>> > >>> Patch is attached. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Hello, > >> The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial > >> version of > >> the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be > >> written in > >> dse.ldif) > >> I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself > >> if the > >> DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > >> If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then > >> activate > >> itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > >> > >> Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > >> > >> thanks > >> thierry > > > > My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. > > We > > already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates > > etc. I > > do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level > > support > > for that anyway. > > > > So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is > > unused, 2 is > > the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. > > I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems > easier to > bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new > developers) > why we have two "ones" which mean something else. > > Code-wise it is just an integer. > > Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another > incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to > test > (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain > level). > >>> > >>> +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, > >>> because > >>> 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support > >>> anymore, > >>> right? > >> > >> Good point! > >> > > > > It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still > > have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the > > new > > DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - > > i.e. have Domain Level 0. > > > > As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than > > benefits... > > I would argue that it actually helps. > > If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new > DNS semantics. > > If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is > a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. First of all a domain level is something we change *RARELY*, and it is a whole number and it is an all or nothing thing. I do not understand why plugin versions matter at all, plugin version have nothing to do with domain levels. Each plugin *whatever* the version MUST always support at least 2 levels, because every domain you have will have to go through a domain_level transition when a new domain level comes out. Finally no single developer should be allowed to decide on anew domain level, this must be a well ponder team decision as all plugins that need to change behavior based on domain level will be affected so a thorough review of what changes are needed across all plugins must be done every time someone propose a change that requires a domain level bump. Last but not least we should consider domain levels as something that changes *very* slowly, because otherwise you'll have to support many domain levels within any plugins that have to change behavior according to the domain level. I would say that the domain level should not change more frequently than once a year or so. It would be too much code churn to do otherwise. So for now domain_level should be set to 0. And the topology plugin will be enabled only when we turn it to 1. However we shouldn't turn it to 1 until we have the replica promotion code at least, because only then we can make full use of the topology plugins. The DNS mess is unfixable, unless Petr you volunteer to backport code to change the behavior
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 28.5.2015 10:49, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: >> On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: >>> Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: >> On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should >>> actually be >>> number 2, not 1. >>> >>> We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I >>> believe >>> that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but >>> and >>> actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level >>> 1) >>> >>> Patch is attached. >>> >>> >>> >> Hello, >> The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial >> version of >> the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be >> written in >> dse.ldif) >> I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself >> if the >> DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. >> If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then >> activate >> itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. >> >> Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. >> >> thanks >> thierry > > My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We > already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates > etc. I > do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level > support > for that anyway. > > So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, > 2 is > the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). >>> >>> +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, >>> because >>> 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, >>> right? >> >> Good point! >> > > It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still > have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new > DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - > i.e. have Domain Level 0. > > As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... I would argue that it actually helps. If domain level = 1 then we can be *sure* that all replicas support the new DNS semantics. If domain level = 0 then we know nothing (because of patched RHEL 6) and it is a warning sign for diagnostic tools and also us when it comes to debugging. -- Petr^2 Spacek -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/28/2015 09:05 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: >> Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): >>> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: > On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: >> Hello, >> >> it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually >> be >> number 2, not 1. >> >> We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I >> believe >> that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but >> and >> actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) >> >> Patch is attached. >> >> >> > Hello, > The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial > version of > the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be > written in > dse.ldif) > I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if > the > DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. > If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then > activate > itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. > > Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. > > thanks > thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. >>> >>> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier >>> to >>> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new >>> developers) >>> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. >>> >>> Code-wise it is just an integer. >>> >>> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another >>> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to >>> test >>> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain >>> level). >> >> +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, >> because >> 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, >> right? > > Good point! > It may be a good point, but it does not make the situation easier. You still have RHEL/CentOS 6.x IPA out there, where some of them already support the new DNS forwarders and some don't - and neither of them support Domain Levels - i.e. have Domain Level 0. As I said, I still see more complications with this proposals than benefits... -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 28.5.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote: > Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): >> On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: >>> On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > Hello, > > it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually > be > number 2, not 1. > > We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I > believe > that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but > and > actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) > > Patch is attached. > > > Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry >>> >>> My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We >>> already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates >>> etc. I >>> do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level >>> support >>> for that anyway. >>> >>> So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 >>> is >>> the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. >> >> I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier >> to >> bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) >> why we have two "ones" which mean something else. >> >> Code-wise it is just an integer. >> >> Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another >> incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test >> (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain >> level). > > +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because > 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, > right? Good point! -- Petr^2 Spacek -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
Dne 26.5.2015 v 16:32 Petr Spacek napsal(a): On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). +1, but I think the minimum supported domain level should be 1, not 0, because 0 means the server uses the old DNS schema, which we do not support anymore, right? If you really want to avoid unforeseen issues rather go and get rid of "major.minor" logic we have in the topology plugin right now :-) -- Jan Cholasta -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/27/2015 01:04 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: On 05/26/2015 04:32 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: ... If you really want to avoid unforeseen issues rather go and get rid of "major.minor" logic we have in the topology plugin right now :-) Ludwig, I thought we agreed to avoid using major.minor format in the topology plugin Domain Level implementation, to both avoid confusion of users and to not ship unused code - right? The user does not see major/minor, so no confusion. All the plugin versions have the format 1.0 or alike and I converted the single integer domain level internally to compare to the plugin version Thanks, Martin -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/26/2015 04:32 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: ... > If you really want to avoid unforeseen issues rather go and get rid of > "major.minor" logic we have in the topology plugin right now :-) Ludwig, I thought we agreed to avoid using major.minor format in the topology plugin Domain Level implementation, to both avoid confusion of users and to not ship unused code - right? Thanks, Martin -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 26.5.2015 16:16, Martin Kosek wrote: > On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: >> On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be >>> number 2, not 1. >>> >>> We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe >>> that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and >>> actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) >>> >>> Patch is attached. >>> >>> >>> >> Hello, >> The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version >> of >> the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in >> dse.ldif) >> I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the >> DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. >> If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate >> itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. >> >> Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. >> >> thanks >> thierry > > My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We > already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I > do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support > for that anyway. > > So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is > the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. I'm more worried about confusion in future. To to me it simply seems easier to bump one integer now than to document and explain (to users & new developers) why we have two "ones" which mean something else. Code-wise it is just an integer. Also, it can simplify logic in future when we decide to do another incompatible change in DNS tree because we will have only one integer to test (instead of checking two separate version attribute in DNS tree & domain level). If you really want to avoid unforeseen issues rather go and get rid of "major.minor" logic we have in the topology plugin right now :-) -- Petr^2 Spacek -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/26/2015 04:13 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry My personal opinion on this is to start with Domain Level 1 regardless. We already "solved" the DNS forwarders otherwise, with docs, async updates etc. I do not think we will be returning to implementing proper Domain Level support for that anyway. So I rather think that all the "Domain Level starts with 0, 1 is unused, 2 is the top one" will cause unforeseen issues I would rather like to avoid. My 2 cents. Martin -- 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
Re: [Freeipa-devel] Domain level for topology plugin = 2
On 05/26/2015 02:12 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: Hello, it came to my mind that domain level for topology plugin should actually be number 2, not 1. We already used number 1 for incompatible changes in DNS tree and I believe that it is not a good idea to have two places which say 'version 1' but and actually mean two different things. (DNS tree version 1 + domain level 1) Patch is attached. Hello, The fix looks good but that seems strange to have to set the initial version of the topology plugin to 2.0. (IIUC That is the version that will be written in dse.ldif) I would rather expects that topology plugin 1.0, would activate itself if the DomainLevel is 2.0 or more. If topology plugin 1.0 sets an internal DomainLevel_trigger=2.0 then activate itself if DomainLevel >= DomainLevel_trigger. Let's wait for Ludwig feedback. thanks thierry -- 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
