Quoting Howard Chu <[email protected]>:
Mike Jackson wrote:
Quoting Dieter Klünter <[email protected]>:
The attribute type is openLDAPaci. The model is based on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ldapext-acl-model-08
Does this FAQ-O-Matic still represent the current situation regarding
the semantics and not recommended for general use?
Yes.
OK, thanks for clarification from both you, Howard, and Dieter. I like
in-tree ACIs for the reason that they are replicated without too much
concern. OTOH, the olcAccess semantics are very powerful compared to
the SUN/Netscape semantics.
The key thing I desire, I suppose, is replicated schema and ACI, but
not some/most of the other parts of cn=config. I, like the previous
poster today, would like to be able to dynamically adjust logging
levels on a per-server basis while replicating other matters of
policy. I think it just means a bit more work on the syncrepl access
control. Small price to pay for such power, and don't require much
touching after initial config anyway, IMO.
-mike
