On (23/11/15 16:42), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 11/23/2015 04:32 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>On 23.11.2015 13:53, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>On 11/20/2015 05:35 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:57:04PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>please see attached patch.
>>>Could you ask Petr Spacek to do a conceptual review? Somebody else (me
>>>of noone else is interested) can then do the code-review but I don't
>>>think our team has as good experience in handling nsupdate details..
>>Hello Petr, could you do the conceptual review as Jakub wishes?
>>I hope it should not be too hard as what we change in the patches is
>>generation of a textual message for nsupdate and it's tested I dare to say
>Sure, just send me a link :-) I do not see it the message above.
Sure, hope the link will work for you:
Thank you very much for updating desing page.
Some parts are not clear to me.
You added following lines after first send into "Fallback attempt"
;sever is present only if option dyndns_server is set in sssd.conf
;realm is used always in fallback message
But in other part of thread you wrote:
"It was not a bug at the moment when document was written.
It became a bug when we had to call nsupdate for each transaction
separately - before that it was rather optimization."
What do you mean by transaction? It's not mentioned in design document.
Does it mean that nsupdate is called twice for updates in section
If it is called twice that it would be good to separate them
into two boxes.
If it is not called twice then I do not undersand why it was not bug
PS: it would be good to also update the section "How To Test". It's very
and does not reflect latest changes in design document.