[SSSD] Design Discussion: Active Directory DNS updates

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Mon Mar 18 17:47:15 UTC 2013


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:27:13AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 15:09 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:29:48AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 09:46 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I'm all for generic shared code, but then it would sound like even
> > > > LDAP
> > > > provider for instance supports the dynamic updates..
> > > 
> > > This would be a positive feature imo.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, but I was trying to say that given their provider-agnostic names,
> > the options might confuse the user into setting them in an LDAP provider
> > and expeciting them to work, while in reality only AD and IPA would be
> > implemented.
> 
> I think it should a generic provider and AD and IPA should just have
> different defaults, like with many other things.
> 

OK, but we need to document that setting these options only has effect
for the AD and IPA providers.

> > > > also the ipa_
> > > > options are already there and we should support them anyway. 
> > > 
> > > Yes but that is easy we can alias the old configuration options onto the
> > > new ones for the IPA backend.
> > 
> > OK, what would you suggest would be documented in manpages, then? Only
> > the new options with IPA manpage also carrying a note that also the old
> > options are supported for backwards compatibility?
> 
> Probably the right way to go, yeah.

I've amended the design page. You can view the diff here:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/ActiveDirectoryDNSUpdates?action=diff&version=8&old_version=7

And the full page here:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/ActiveDirectoryDNSUpdates



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list