Open Stack

You could create separate branches of the LDAP tree for groups and 
roles, and then use the orgRole OC for entries in both branches, 
providing the client has the built in intelligence to know which branch 
is the role branch and which branch is the group branch. Otherwise you 
can mix groups and roles in the same branch if you use different OCs to 
signify the two different types of entry ie. orgRole OC and gON OC.
But I dont see how you can mix groups and roles in the same branch and 
use the same OC for both, as nothing can tell the difference between the 
two.

regards

David


On 14/12/2012 18:43, Yee, Guang wrote:
> Having both in a single field should be fine. LDAP group members can be
> both users and groups (nested groups). At the end, you still need to
> walk the tree to resolve unique user membership anyway as token doesn’t
> contain any group information.
>
> Guang
>
> *From:*Adam Young [mailto:ayoung at redhat.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2012 10:04 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> *Subject:* [openstack-dev] [Keystone] LDAP support for groups
>
> We are close to getting Groups done in the SQL back end, but we still
> need a schema for  LDAP, and it is not super apparent how to close the
> gap on it.
>
>
> The schema for role assignment is:
>
> 1.   #
>
> 2.   olcObjectClasses: ( 2.5.6.8 NAME 'organizationalRole'
>
> 3.      DESC 'RFC2256: an organizational role'
>
> 4.      SUP top STRUCTURAL
>
> 5.      MUST cn
>
> 6.      MAY ( x121Address $ registeredAddress $ destinationIndicator $
>
> 7.      preferredDeliveryMethod $ telexNumber $ teletexTerminalIdentifier $
>
> 8.      telephoneNumber $ internationaliSDNNumber $ facsimileTelephoneNumber $
>
> 9.      !
>
> 10.  seeAlso $
>
> 11.
>
> 12.roleOccupant $ preferredDeliveryMethod $ street $
>
> 13.   postOfficeBox $ postalCode $ postalAddress $
>
> 14.   physicalDeliveryOfficeName $ ou $ st $ l $ description ) )
>
>
> And the users are in the roleOccupant field.
>
> We want to be able to make the roleOccupant included members of groups.
> But I am not sure that having both in a single field is advisable.  I
> would rather have a deliberate fields for group members.  This was what
> we did in FreeIPA, and I think it is the right approach.
>
> We could extend roleOccupant with an other object class, but there is no
> obvious class to use.
>
> We could replace roleOccupant with a different object class.  While that
> would make a painful transition, it might be preferable.  But again,
> there is no obvious replacement.
>
> We could make groups a collection underneath organizationalRoles
>
>
> Feedback is welcome.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>