[Freeipa-users] [Freeipa-devel] Announcing bind-dyndb-ldap version 3.2

[Petr Spacek]

On 21.5.2013 07:00, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> On 20.05.2013 23:01, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 09:21 AM, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>>> On 15.05.2013 11:58, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>> The FreeIPA team is proud to announce bind-dyndb-ldap version 3.2.
>>>>
>>>> == Feedback ==
>>>>
>>>> Please provide comments, bugs and other feedback via the freeipa-users
>>>> mailing
>>>> list: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users
>>> What is the status on pushing the 'dynamic database API' to BIND upstream?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You mean to fold the ldap driver package into the core BIND package?
>> There are no plans like this. Why? LDAP driver is a separate package and
>> I am not sure BIND upstream would be interested in taking it in.
>
> No I meant the huge-ish patch to BIND that bind-dyndb-ldap depends on,
> available here:
>
> https://github.com/mnagy/bind-dynamic_db/downloads
>
> I haven't asked the Debian maintainer yet, but suspect there would be
> opposition to adding it to the bind package.. so upstream would be
> preferable of course.

We contacted ISC a year ago and here is a reply from them (reply from Evan 
Hunt via RT):
> At a cursory glance this looks like quite good code, and we might indeed be
> interested in accepting it into BIND 9, as it has at least one feature we had
> hoped to support eventually (external database with the ability to serve
> DNSSEC).
>
> We can't commit it in its current form for a few reasons:  first, there are no
> tests or documentation; second, there is no sample driver we can provide as
> guidance to implementors.  (The LDAP driver you pointed to is good, but it's
> GPL, which means ISC is forbidden by corporate charter from shipping it.)
>
> We can probably help with tests and doc, but a sample driver with a BSD-
> compatible license would be a huge help, even if it only served static zones
> (such as the one in bind9/bin/tests/system/dlzexternal/driver.c).
>
> Out of curiosity, why did you decide to add a new API and new 'dynamic-db'
> configuration syntax instead of extending or improving the existing DLZ API?
> Would a merged approach be workable?  Minimizing the number of different ways to
> accomplish the same thing would be desirable, if feasible.
>
> I see a few trivial ISC code-style incompatibilities, but nothing to worry about
> on that account.  I'm planning to commit your patch to a CVS branch for further
> work, and will review the code in more detail later.

 From that time we didn't have time to move it forward. Any help is appreciated!

E.g. you could do some comparison with DLZ drivers 
(http://bind-dlz.sourceforge.net/) or write some really simple example driver.

-- 
Petr^2 Spacek