Re: Bottomline - Going LDAP.

[Anders Magnusson <ragge%ludd.ltu.se@localhost>]

Brian Ginsbach wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 05:20:27PM +0200, Anders Magnusson wrote:
>   
>> So,
>>
>> there were not many concerns about what I sent out a few weeks ago, I
>> think it can be summarized as:
>>
>> - Text files must still work (nobody said anything else...)
>>     
>
> I thought there were a lot of concerns expressed about how it was
> worded.  If you are just adding to the nsswitch capability, the
> consensus seemed that it was ok.  I didn't get the feeling that
> wholesale replacement or making LDAP the default preferred blessed
> method was fine.  Did I miss something?
>   
I cannot find any mail that complained about that, as long as it's not
always turned on...?

>> - ypserv can exit base system if there is a compatibility replacement
>> for it.
>>     
>
> If we have syspkgs working. :-) 
> Otherwise my inclination would be no.  NIS still has its place.
> LDAP/NIS shims do have issues.  LDAP is much heavier than NIS,
> right?  Also there is the issue ypserv bit rotting.
>
> Or are you saying your new LADP solution would talk NIS?
>   
Yes.  That was in the original proposal.  Default small domain system should
be LDAP+Kerberos, and ypserv compatibility added for those that needs it.
And to avoid the large overhead of an OpenLDAP server I suggested the use
of a small simple ldap server that do not need all administrative skills
to be
setup and run.

>> ...which means that I should come up with a more hands-on RFC about how
>> to get there in the nearest days :-)
>>
>>     
>
> Maybe the RFC will answer these questions. :-)
>   
Hopefully, yes :-)

-- Ragge