RFR: Domain Controller Role Proposal - Second Draft

[Stephen Gallagher]

I incorporated the changes requested during last week's Server SIG meeting. I
split the roadmap and requirements documents and added more detail on the
technical acceptance requirements for the Domain Controller.

The new documents are located at
https://github.com/libre-server/proposals/tree/master/Domain%20Controller

A review would be most appreciated.

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 02/16/2017 11:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  I incorporated the changes requested during last week's Server
> SIG meeting. I
>  split the roadmap and requirements documents and added more detail on the
>  technical acceptance requirements for the Domain Controller.
>  
>  The new documents are located at
>  https://github.com/libre-server/proposals/tree/master/Domain%20Controller
>  
>  A review would be most appreciated.
>   
Any feedback here? This will be on the test^W agenda for tomorrow's meeting.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:59:00 -0500
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On 02/16/2017 11:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  > I incorporated the changes requested during last week's Server SIG
>  > meeting. I split the roadmap and requirements documents and added
>  > more detail on the technical acceptance requirements for the Domain
>  > Controller.
>  > 
>  > The new documents are located at
>  > https://github.com/libre-server/proposals/tree/master/Domain%20Controller
>  > 
>  > A review would be most appreciated.
>  >   
>  
>  Any feedback here? This will be on the test^W agenda for tomorrow's
>  meeting. 
Down to the wire, but a few minor comments: 

* Do we want to specify "Linux Client" any here? Perhaps say any non
  EOL Fedora Client? or make it more broad? 

* I guess this still means we need to have a windows server for testing
  in the end? 

Otherwise looks great to me.

kevin

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 02/28/2017 01:27 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:59:00 -0500
>  Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
> > On 02/16/2017 11:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> I incorporated the changes requested during last week's Server SIG
> >> meeting. I split the roadmap and requirements documents and added
> >> more detail on the technical acceptance requirements for the Domain
> >> Controller.
> >>
> >> The new documents are located at
> >> https://github.com/libre-server/proposals/tree/master/Domain%20Controller
> >>
> >> A review would be most appreciated.
> >>   
> >
> > Any feedback here? This will be on the test^W agenda for tomorrow's
> > meeting.
>  
>  Down to the wire, but a few minor comments: 
>  
>  * Do we want to specify "Linux Client" any here? Perhaps say any non
>    EOL Fedora Client? or make it more broad? 
>   
From the perspective of the server role itself, I think we want to be able to
support theoretically any Linux client. I'm not aware of a prominent Linux
distribution that doesn't have either SSSD or pam_ldap/pam_krb5 available for it
at this point.

That's not to say that we have to commit to *testing* all possible clients (and
I'd leave that up to the FreeIPA folks who are already doing a more
comprehensive job of that than I expect we can manage).

If we wanted to be specific, though, we could say define "Linux Client" as
being
"at least one Fedora-derived distribution and at least one Debian-derived
distribution".


>  * I guess this still means we need to have a windows server for
> testing
>    in the end? 
>   
Yes, but we may have options here. I need to find it in my backlog, but someone
pointed out that we may be able to get access to short-lived Windows Server
virtual machines for our testing.

Adam, I think you were on the CC of that conversation, do you have a pointer
handy for it?


>  Otherwise looks great to me.
>   
Thanks! I asked the FreeIPA team to chime in on it, but they haven't responded
to this draft. (They did have a couple comments on the first draft which were
incorporated prior to our meeting on it).

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 13:50 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  > * I guess this still means we need to have a windows server for
> testing
>  >   in the end? 
>  > 
>  
>  Yes, but we may have options here. I need to find it in my backlog, but someone
>  pointed out that we may be able to get access to short-lived Windows Server
>  virtual machines for our testing.
>  
>  Adam, I think you were on the CC of that conversation, do you have a pointer
>  handy for it? 
There's a system for this developed internally at Red Hat called PAWS,
and if you're an RHer, you can read a bunch about it in Mojo:

https://mojo.redhat.com/groups/paws

it's not yet as public as I'd want it to be to use it for Fedora
testing, but they said they were working on releasing as much of it as
possible publicly, and after that it may well be what we need for this.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net