> On Apr 9, 2017, at 5:22 PM, Craig Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com> wrote: > > tl;dr Adding title field is fine. I see it as secretary's responsibility to > harmonize iclas.txt and ldap.
Ack. > We might as well add Suffix to LDAP to cater for the 23 III and 6 II that we > have. I've added a comment to IIINFRA-13850 Agreed. Are there any other person-data related fields we should consider capturing/adding? Now’s the time, since I’m committed to updating the infra ldap/adduser tooling at this point. >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: <snip> >> Once created, we need to nail down the responsibility for updating >> names. Given that names change infrequently and at least one copy >> (iclas.txt) isn't updateable by users themselves, this responsibility >> should go to the secretary (Craig, please confirm?), and the necessary >> tooling needs to be in place to allow the secretarial team to do so. > > Secretary is up to this task, given adequate tooling. Excellent. I think this will be a good use for the existing LDAP/ICLA comparison tool, which could probably be extended to allow for some simple “on the fly” editing of the various fields to correct any discrepancies. >> --- >> >> The format of a new-account-request isn't flexible, but is workable >> (I'd prefer JSON or YAML, but adding still more fields at the end is >> probably easier): I’m not opposed in theory, but grafting a JSON or YAML parser onto the existing ap-adduser code is out of scope right now, and more than likely not worth the effort. If we want to go down that road, it would make more sense to rewrite the acreq process from the ground up. Thanks for the input so far. Technical/implementation details can be captured in INFRA-13850. -Chris
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
