openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20960 discussions

Re: (ITS#4730) Overlay that generates operational attributes to support GUI interaction
by jonathan＠phillipoux.net 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

On 17/08/2009 11:09, michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > masarati(a)aero.polimi.it wrote: >>> >>> I've added support for 'allowedAttributesEffective' in web2ldap recently >>> which >>> works with AD. I tried this overlay but it seg faults with recent OpenLDAP >>> version. Any chance to get this back on the radar? >> >> I've built and tested my copy of allowed.c with HEAD and re24 and it works >> as expected. However, I might have modified it to keep pace with baseline >> code evolution without resubmitting modifications. I can't check right >> now but I will. If needed, I'll resubmit the modified code, so consider >> it done. >> >> The main reason I didn't put it directly in contrib/ is that at that time >> I was considering the opportunity of packaging all contributions and >> customizations intended for samba4 in something as self contained as >> possible (in the end, supporting all samba4 related extensions may result >> in stacking dozens of overlays, which may result in overhead and possibly >> in incompatibilities, something we might need to deal with at some point). >> >> However, as your interest seems to revitalize this feature, I see no >> objection in putting it at least in contrib (if there's enough consensus). > > I'd highly appreciate to find copy under contrib/. Other people I know also > have interest in that. Many thanks. Absolutely, I for one am very interested. Looking forward to it :) Jonathan

1 0

Re: (ITS#4730) Overlay that generates operational attributes to support GUI interaction
by michael＠stroeder.com 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

masarati(a)aero.polimi.it wrote: >> >> I've added support for 'allowedAttributesEffective' in web2ldap recently >> which >> works with AD. I tried this overlay but it seg faults with recent OpenLDAP >> version. Any chance to get this back on the radar? > > I've built and tested my copy of allowed.c with HEAD and re24 and it works > as expected. However, I might have modified it to keep pace with baseline > code evolution without resubmitting modifications. I can't check right > now but I will. If needed, I'll resubmit the modified code, so consider > it done. > > The main reason I didn't put it directly in contrib/ is that at that time > I was considering the opportunity of packaging all contributions and > customizations intended for samba4 in something as self contained as > possible (in the end, supporting all samba4 related extensions may result > in stacking dozens of overlays, which may result in overhead and possibly > in incompatibilities, something we might need to deal with at some point). > > However, as your interest seems to revitalize this feature, I see no > objection in putting it at least in contrib (if there's enough consensus). I'd highly appreciate to find copy under contrib/. Other people I know also have interest in that. Many thanks. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#4730) Overlay that generates operational attributes to support GUI interaction
by masarati＠aero.polimi.it 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

> HI! > > I've added support for 'allowedAttributesEffective' in web2ldap recently > which > works with AD. I tried this overlay but it seg faults with recent OpenLDAP > version. Any chance to get this back on the radar? Michael, I've built and tested my copy of allowed.c with HEAD and re24 and it works as expected. However, I might have modified it to keep pace with baseline code evolution without resubmitting modifications. I can't check right now but I will. If needed, I'll resubmit the modified code, so consider it done. The main reason I didn't put it directly in contrib/ is that at that time I was considering the opportunity of packaging all contributions and customizations intended for samba4 in something as self contained as possible (in the end, supporting all samba4 related extensions may result in stacking dozens of overlays, which may result in overhead and possibly in incompatibilities, something we might need to deal with at some point). However, as your interest seems to revitalize this feature, I see no objection in putting it at least in contrib (if there's enough consensus). p.

1 0

Re: (ITS#6258) slaptest -f slapd.conf -F slapd.d returns errors without DB
by masarati＠aero.polimi.it 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

> Full_Name: Andrew Bartlett > Version: CVS HEAD > OS: Fedora 10 > URL: > Submission from: (NULL) (59.167.251.137) > > > When running slaptest to convert between slapd.conf and slapd.d format > configuration, before the databases exist, the slaptest returns with an > non-zero > error code and prints warnings. > > If I add -u to the command line, then it does not perform the conversion. > > In Samba4's provision system, I wish to run using cn=config from the very > start, > and so wish to do the conversion before the databases are created. > > I had expected -u to quiet the warnings, but it was unexpected that it > would > also not perform the conversion. (I understand it is also considered a > 'dry > run' parameter). > > Can I have a new parameter added to allow a behaviour of 'do the > conversion, > don't check the database vaildity'? I think having a "dry dun" that does no harm, and a "safe" (although perhaps overconservative) behavior are very important, so I wouldn't favor a modification of their behavior (let alone the implied behavioral change issues). However I don't see any issue in having a specific, well documented behavior implemented within a specific option. Perhaps, given it is a specific and not recommended behavior in normal (read: overconservative) use, it could go under the "-o" switch, which is a catchall for specific options. p.

1 0

(ITS#6258) slaptest -f slapd.conf -F slapd.d returns errors without DB
by abartlet＠samba.org 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

Full_Name: Andrew Bartlett Version: CVS HEAD OS: Fedora 10 URL: Submission from: (NULL) (59.167.251.137) When running slaptest to convert between slapd.conf and slapd.d format configuration, before the databases exist, the slaptest returns with an non-zero error code and prints warnings. If I add -u to the command line, then it does not perform the conversion. In Samba4's provision system, I wish to run using cn=config from the very start, and so wish to do the conversion before the databases are created. I had expected -u to quiet the warnings, but it was unexpected that it would also not perform the conversion. (I understand it is also considered a 'dry run' parameter). Can I have a new parameter added to allow a behaviour of 'do the conversion, don't check the database vaildity'? Thanks, Andrew Bartlett

1 0

Re: (ITS#6247)
by daniel＠pluta.biz 16 Aug '09

16 Aug '09

Howard Chu schrieb: > Kurt(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: >> With that, I leave determination of the technical suitability to the >> Project. @Kurt: my given copyright notices meet my intentions. > I'm not sure why the 2 additional syntaxes are useful. If you want to > define a generalizedTime attribute that cannot be compared for ordering, > simply omit the ORDERING rule from the attribute's definition. I thought, that it is possible to "overwrite" the ORDERING (even if its left empty) by using any kind of syntax-related matching rule assertion... This is a quite old posting from the list but nevertheless I would like to cite it: http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200010/msg00092.html ------8<-------8<------ >Also, I have found this interesting section in RFC 2252: > >----- >8. Matching Rules > > Servers which implement the extensibleMatch filter SHOULD allow all > the matching rules listed in this section to be used in the > extensibleMatch. In general these servers SHOULD allow matching > rules to be used with all attribute types known to the server, when > the assertion syntax of the matching rule is the same as the value > syntax of the attribute. Yes. That is, if the held value is syntax X, one should be able to use any matching rule in which the assertion syntax X. ------8<-------8<------ > The use of negatives is rather confusing. In the example, instead of > "nowNotBefore" and "nowNotAfter" I would simply have called them > "startDate" and "endDate". In general, the names indeed sound quite strange. But that seems only a matter of style. NotAfter and NotBefore is borrowed from ssl certificates' validNotBefore/-After fields. As I've called the module "now" I just replaced "valid" by "now"... On the other hand I wanted to be sure to not collide with some might be existing attribute definitions. > The language is also confusing in other areas, I don't understand what > property you're trying to convey with the terms "dead center attribute" simply the lower and the upper limits of a time period (lower: nowNotBefore, upper: nowNotAfter) > or "syntactically standalone attribute". All I've ment is just a new syntax name to differentiate regarding the special use of "now" and to avoid the possibility regarding my (possibly wrong) assumption that matching rules can be "overwritten". > On a slightly related note, in the context of time-relative ACLs, it > would be worthwhile to define a behavior for time-of-day comparisons > (i.e., just compare hours:minutes:seconds, excluding year/month/day). This kind of feature sounds fine to me, too. Perhaps something like this could be implemented by introducing some kind of officeHourSyntax + matching rule which operates on e.g. "day(s)_of_week#hh:mm:ss#hh:mm:ss" attribute values (just my first thought and very simplified). On the other side, using only one attribute which stores a start as well as an end timestamp is not what I originally wanted for "now" because I would like to have the possibility to track period extensions using the multi-valued upper dead center attribute. > Companies often want to limit access to resources to only a set of > office hours, etc. Of course to properly handle the "office hours" case > would also require day-of-week matching. That may be getting to be too > complicated for this particular submission, but it seems closely related > so I mention it here. In my opinion your suggestion sounds really interesting. I personally just had searched for some kind of solution to get rid of the just-in-time event-triggered dependencies regarding provisioning of interconnected (not replicated) IDM-systems. So "now's" scope targets to longer (more static, not often changing) time-distances. The check for the "office hours case" could be handled by an all-in-wonder (multi-valued) attribute which stores "day(s)#start#end". Many thanks for your feedback. Some additional feedback/clarification regarding the above mentioned "overwriting" of matching rules would be very fine, too (e.g. a link where I can get the detailed specs).

1 0

Re: (ITS#6247)
by masarati＠aero.polimi.it 16 Aug '09

16 Aug '09

> On a slightly related note, in the context of time-relative ACLs, it would > be > worthwhile to define a behavior for time-of-day comparisons (i.e., just > compare hours:minutes:seconds, excluding year/month/day). Companies often > want > to limit access to resources to only a set of office hours, etc. Of course > to > properly handle the "office hours" case would also require day-of-week > matching. That may be getting to be too complicated for this particular > submission, but it seems closely related so I mention it here. Howard, I was also thinking of something like that. Since we basically have a field available in the matching rule (the asserted value), I suggested to add an assertion syntax defaulting to the empty value. I was planning to turn this assertion syntax into a timestamp mask that allows to filter what fractions should be asserted. Another possibly related issue is locale: the time of slapd is supposed to be UTC, but filtering on working hours and so should be done keeping into account timezone, daylight saving and so. The assertion syntax could handle this in a user-friendly manner. Probably, I better step off and formalize things before further coding. p.

1 0

(ITS#6257) libldap: getopt flag to return the SASL username
by michael＠stroeder.com 16 Aug '09

16 Aug '09

Full_Name: Michael Ströder Version: HEAD OS: URL: Submission from: (NULL) (84.163.93.2) libldap should be capable of returning SASL username obtained with sasl_getprop( sasl_context, SASL_USERNAME, ... ) as result of ldap_get_option()

1 0

Re: (ITS#6247)
by hyc＠symas.com 16 Aug '09

16 Aug '09

Kurt(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > With that, I leave determination of the technical suitability to the > Project. It took me several passes through this discussion and the README to understand what the intent of this code is. Just to make sure I get it, let me restate what I saw: 3 extended matching rules for comparing a timestamp attribute to the server's current clock. I'm not sure why the 2 additional syntaxes are useful. If you want to define a generalizedTime attribute that cannot be compared for ordering, simply omit the ORDERING rule from the attribute's definition. The use of negatives is rather confusing. In the example, instead of "nowNotBefore" and "nowNotAfter" I would simply have called them "startDate" and "endDate". The language is also confusing in other areas, I don't understand what property you're trying to convey with the terms "dead center attribute" or "syntactically standalone attribute". On a slightly related note, in the context of time-relative ACLs, it would be worthwhile to define a behavior for time-of-day comparisons (i.e., just compare hours:minutes:seconds, excluding year/month/day). Companies often want to limit access to resources to only a set of office hours, etc. Of course to properly handle the "office hours" case would also require day-of-week matching. That may be getting to be too complicated for this particular submission, but it seems closely related so I mention it here. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#6247)
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

Daniel, While I understand you to have both some IPR concerns and technical concerns with what Ando proposed, I will only concern myself to the IPR issues. Thank you for updating your contribution to provide the required notices. I have provided guidance to Ando on how to create a work derived from your submission which, I believe, mets the terms of the license, the OpenLDAP Public License, you granted. In particular, I provided him guidance on how to properly "retain your copyright statement and notices". Presuming your notices are properly retained, I see no IPR issue here in the project accepting your contribution and/or Ando's derived work, and the Foundation distributing either or both. I do regularly review commits to our source repository to ensure IPR issues are adequately addressed, but do feel free to raise any issue you see in how we handle materials which you have copyright interest in. Beyond that, I leave it to the Project to determine the technical suitability of these contributions and what, if any, modifications should be made prior to inclusion in OpenLDAP Software. Given your license grant, the Foundation sees no obligation to seek further permission from you and hence will not seek additional permission before redistributing your work, with or without modification. If it was your intent to require those redistributing your work, with or without modification, to obtain some additional permission from you, please immediately advise us that your copyright statement and notice do not reflect your intentions. If immediately advised, we will try to honor your intentions. Otherwise, we will continue to assume, as we do now, that your copyright statement and notice reflect your intentions at the time of your contribution was offered. With that, I leave determination of the technical suitability to the Project. Regards, Kurt

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs