[Freeipa-devel] rename topology suffixes

[Martin Babinsky]

On 11/27/2015 01:39 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 27.11.2015 13:10, Petr Vobornik wrote:
>> On 11/27/2015 12:46 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>> On 27.11.2015 09:00, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>> On 27.11.2015 08:33, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>> On 11/27/2015 07:05 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>> On 26.11.2015 17:15, Petr Vobornik wrote:
>>>>>>> New topology management gives names to managed suffixes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ipaca: o=ipaca
>>>>>>> realm: dc=example,dc=com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already had several offline discussions to change the names
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> they could be better. It would be difficult to change them after
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>> of 4.3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New proposals:
>>>>>>> ca for o=ipaca
>>>>>>> domain for dc=example,dc=com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> ca is probably fine. Domain also, although the original realm name
>>>>> is OK
>>>>> with me too, domain has too many meanings and can be confused with DNS
>>>>> domain.
>>>>
>>>> Realm is too Kerberos-specific. The names are visible only in topology
>>>> context, so I don't think it would be confusing. When you say "the
>>>> domain
>>>> suffix", it describes the suffix pretty correctly IMHO.
>>>
>>> Here I agree with Martin that domain is too overloaded term, so I
>>> would prefer
>>> realm or so.
>>>
>>> Also, I do not think that 'Realm is too Kerberos-specific' is a valid
>>> argument
>>> because 'domain is too DNS-centric' :-)
>>>
>>
>> I guess we could find arguments for both 'domain' and 'realm'. :) I
>> don't have strong opinions on any.
>>
>> Actually, DN of the suffix consist of several 'DC' RDNs. DC is an
>> initialism of "domain component". Several components create a domain so
>> domain is correct ;)
>
> "Domain" is also used by AD and in our documentation IIRC.
>
We also have "domain levels" and not "realm levels" and IPA domain level 
has very little to do with DNS.

-- 
Martin^3 Babinsky