Again a wonderful job William. I always feel proud to work with you and
This change surely deserves outstanding support.

I am thinking, we can publicize this by doing articles on Fedora Magazine
and Commblog.
Also, we should be mentioning about this change in one of our diversity
presentations to inspire others.

firstyear++ :)

Regards,
Ami

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:07 AM, William Brown <wibr...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 16:40 +0000, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > It's time that I'm looking at:
> > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49425
> > >
> > > There are some great reasons to freshen up the default objects we
> > > install. The current design isn't really reflective of modern
> > > directory
> > > usage, the aci's are not "great" examples, and it's not a super-
> > > useful
> > > foundation out of the box.
> > >
> > > As a result, I have some improvements I want to make here. Let's
> > > start
> > > with the simple ones:
> > >
> > > Tree layout:
> > >
> > > dc=example,dc=com
> > > cn=389_ds_system,dc=example,dc=com
> > > ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
> > > ou=groups,dc=example,dc=com
> > > ou=services,dc=example,dc=com
> > > ou=permissions,dc=example,dc=com
> > >
> > > This is the structure I want us to ship with: groups, people,
> > > service
> > > accounts, and permission groups. I additionally add an
> > > nscontainer|ldapsubentry 389_ds_system, which is the "hidden"
> > > config
> > > area that we could start to use for things like pwpolicy, keepalive
> > > entries, replication service accounts and more. I don't think
> > > anything
> > > here is too controversial :)
> > >
> > > Next, demo objects!
> > >
> > > uid=demo_user,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
> > > cn=demo_group,ou=groups,dc=example,dc=com
> > >
> > > These can show a user and group, and lets the cli tools have
> > > something
> > > to show, and how they can be integrated with *acis*.
> > >
> > > Again, nothing complex :)
> > >
> > > Permissions! This is where we start to add aci's and get's a bit
> > > fun.
> > >
> > > I want to ship with a few useful permisisons and acis. The thinking
> > > is:
> > >
> > > * anonymous read to public ou=People and user attributes (ie Sssd
> > > should work oob)
> > > * anonymous read to groups attributes (ie Sssd should work oob)
> > > * a permission group where members can alter group members
> > > * a permission group where members can alter users
> > > * a permission group where members can reset user passwords
> > > * a permission group where members can create/delete users
> > > * a permission group where members can create/delete groups
> > >
> > > This is a pretty simple set of acis, but I want them to show how
> > > delegation of permissions can be done safely, and act as examples
> > > and
> > > templates for admins - as well as just being simple and useful for
> > > small deployments out of the box!
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, this is the final suggestion: I'd like to add some extra
> > > schema
> > > and change user objects by default that we create.
> > >
> > > I would like to add:
> > >
> > > nsPerson
> > >
> > > I would like them to contain the following:
> > >
> > > nsPerson:
> > > MAY: userPassword, telephoneNumber, seeAlso, description, legalName
> > > MUST: cn, displayName
> >
> > I am also very in favor of this change.  I'd love to see this highly
> > advertised once it merges as I think it speaks very highly of how to
> > both be inclusive and move great software forward while continuing to
> > be extremely useful to users.
>
> Thank you that's great to hear! I've just pushed the patch up now for
> our 1.4.0 server support this. :)
>
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > bex
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a shift from the traditional person object and there is a
> > > really good reason -
> > > internationalisation. (we replace sn with legalName and make it
> > > may,
> > > and add
> > > displayName).
> > >
> > >
> > > The current person account *requires* the sn field. However surname
> > > *does not*
> > > translate across many cultural boundaries. Some people have
> > > multiple
> > > surnames, some
> > > have no concept of a surname.
> > >
> > > What people do have is a *legal name* which is their full name -
> > > for me
> > > that would be
> > > givennames + surname. For others just their single name. having a
> > > single legalName
> > > field correctly represents this case. And additionally many
> > > applications don't
> > > even need a legal name, *only* a displayName of the users choice.
> > >
> > > The second reason is identity related. There are many people whos
> > > chosen name
> > > for the world (displayName) differs from their actual legal name.
> > > As a
> > > result
> > > having a displayname field where the user can *choose* how they are
> > > represented
> > > is highly important. Consider divorced people (who haven't yet
> > > changed
> > > legal names)
> > > victims of crime (who need to hide their identity) and more.
> > >
> > > I think our current schema doesn't current reflect the "best" in
> > > identity management
> > > and by adding nsPerson like this, we can really do the right thing
> > > here, by
> > > default.
> > >
> > > *obivously* this is a new schema, not changing existing items, so
> > > existing deployments
> > > will keep using whatever they want (person etc) - more that new
> > > deployments will
> > > see a modern, best practice that they can follow,
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to get feedback on this soon, as I'd like to have this in
> > > the
> > > cli
> > > tool demo I want to release soon.
> > >
> > > Thanks everyone,
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.o
> > rg
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> William Brown
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane
> _______________________________________________
> 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
_______________________________________________
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to