[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Bottomline - Going LDAP.
Brian Ginsbach wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 05:20:27PM +0200, Anders Magnusson wrote:
>> 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
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 :-)
Main Index |
Thread Index |