[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 0543 - dns: Add idnsSecInlineSigning attribute, add --dnssec option to zone

[thierry bordaz]

On 04/29/2014 10:07 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 08:17 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 20:00 +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> This adds the "idnsSecInlineSigning" attribute and related option.
>>>
>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3801
>>>
>>> Simo, is adding a MAY attribute to an existing objectClass okay?
>>>
>>
>> Not unheard of, however in the past we discovered some schema
>> replication issues that may have an impact, let's make sure DS team also
>> agrees this is not going to cause issue.
>>
>>> From a purely functional pov a MAY attribute will not break any stored
>> object, so it is fine.
>>
>> Simo.
>
> Adding Thierry to the CC list to evaluate the risks, he was already 
> involved in fixing related issue in the DS for a similar Dogtag schema 
> extension.
Hello,

    When an instance in the topology contains schema extensions like new
    MAY attribute, this extension would be propagated to all instances
    by replication (no need to copy/merge schema files). This was the
    purpose of https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47721. So it is fine
    to add new MAY/MUST attribute or new attribute/objectclasses.

    During a replication session, a master will check what schema
    definitions (objectclasses/attributes) of the replica extends its
    own schema. If such definitions exist the supplier add/replace them
    in its schema and its user99.ldif file. In your case if a replica
    contains a new allowed attribute (e.g. 'idnsSecInlineSigning') but
    not the supplier then the supplier 'learns it' (during a replication
    session it initiated) and so an entry containing that new attribute
    can be updated on the supplier as well.
    There is a similar mechanism, when a replica receives a schema that
    contains new definitions, it 'learns' them.

    The fix for 47721 is introduced in 389-ds 1.3.2.17 and after.
    It was tested with mixing 1.3.2.17 instance with legacy versions
    (1.3.1, 1,3.0..), and the schema on both side converged to a common
    one. This, whatever if the extensions are present on both side.
    A limitation is that a legacy instance (not having the fix), must
    have a replica agreements to/from an instance with the fix.

    regards
    thierry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20140430/9b0e8c25/attachment.htm>