Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-infrastructure-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 49337 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2008 11:24:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Nov 2008 11:24:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 59678 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2008 11:24:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-infrastructure-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 59470 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2008 11:24:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list infrastructure-dev@apache.org Received: (qmail 59261 invoked by uid 99); 27 Nov 2008 11:24:05 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:24:05 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [212.23.3.141] (HELO smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk) (212.23.3.141) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:22:36 +0000 Received: from [88.96.10.61] (helo=[172.17.6.27]) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L5exu-0005ZL-5X for infrastructure-dev@apache.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:23:22 +0000 Message-ID: <492E8329.7000705@apache.org> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:23:21 +0000 From: Tony Stevenson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org Subject: Re: Centralised authentication/authorisation References: <55ef8e0d508559e7567041e44f6c61d5.squirrel@mail.pc-tony.com> <1227779504.22393.80.camel@urgyen> <492E74E7.6090001@apache.org> <25aac9fc0811270247l6648566bydb30f7ee74f8f536@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <25aac9fc0811270247l6648566bydb30f7ee74f8f536@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [88.96.10.61] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org sebb wrote: > On 27/11/2008, Tony Stevenson wrote: >> Upayavira wrote: >> > On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 17:54 +0000, Tony Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> [SNIP ...] >> >> >> > >> > The biggest issue that I do not yet see resolved is that of username >> > namespaces. >> > >> > Currently, we have a 'committer' namespace, names are allocated, by >> > root, based upon requests from the new committer, when their Apache >> > account is created. >> > >> > If we go to an LDAP setup that covers non-committers too, then we have >> > to expand our namespace handing to cover names that non-committers might >> > choose. >> >> >> Agreed, this is something I was looking at. I was hoping to find a way >> for non committers usernames to have -pub tagged on the end. >> potentially looking at a sign up page, that would create accounts in >> LDAP with this tagged on the end. Maybe even a self service page, that >> used email verification. > > Much the same as per my recent e-mail. > >> So any accounts that are created by root@ as part of the committer >> process would be manually created, and obviously not have the -pub, thus >> preventing namespace squatting. >> > > Using e-mail verification should prevent any such squatting. > >> > >> > And, we need to work out a way to handle the transition from >> > non-committer to committer, in the (likely) case that that involves a >> > change in username. >> >> >> If we use something similar to that above, and if they become a >> committer and their requested name is not in use then thry can have it, >> much like they can now. If it isn't free then they need to choose >> again. :-) >> >> Simple, really... >> >> >> >> > >> > Otherwise, we could get folks snapping up all the best names in the >> > @apache.org namespace in the hope that they may one day become a >> > committer, rather than having a name selected for them at the point at >> > which their account is created. >> >> >> Cheeky buggers. Who'd of thought people would be so cheeky :-) >> >> >> > >> > In comparison to this, setting up LDAP itself seems easy :-) >> >> >> Here's hoping. >> >> Let me re-iterate, the next thing we all need to agree upon is the LDAP >> schema, nothing will progress without this. I will try to expand the >> current schema I added to SVN, and lets see if it sparks a flurry of >> conversation. >> > > But surely the schema depends at least partly on how it is to be used? > > Or is the idea to produce an initial schema, and see if that supports > the various use cases, and then update the schema as required? That's spot on. For now. The initial schema is the first milestone I have set us before we proceed any further, this seems to be the consensus amongst others too. If we have a base schema, we can quite happily change that to suit, up until we have a final, and agreed, schema that will support everything we want it too. Using an email address as an identifier, is quite simple. Let's see how that that pans out. I have an email from Emmanuel Lecharny in my inbox which I need to digest and incorporate into the proposal. I am hoping that I will find time to do this on Sunday. -- ----------------------------------------- Tony Stevenson tony@pc-tony.com // pctony@apache.org http://www.pc-tony.com/ 1024D/51047D66 ECAF DC55 C608 5E82 0B5E 3359 C9C7 924E 5104 7D66 -----------------------------------------