[389-devel] Thoughts on swapping to rfc2307bis.ldif by default

Hi all, As you may know, I'm currently working on a migration utility to help move from other ldap servers to 389-ds. Something that I have noticed in this process is that other servers default to rfc2307bis.ldif [0] by default. As part of the migration I would like to handle this situation a bit better. It's likely not viable for me to simply plaster rfc2307bis into 99user.ldif as part of the migration process, so I want to approach this better. rfc2307 and rfc2307bis are incompatible schemas that redefine the same OIDs with new/different meanings. Some key examples: * posixGroup in rfc2307 only requires gidNumber, rfc2307bis requires cn and gidNumber. * ipServiceProtocol, ipHostNumber, ipNetworkNumber and nisMapName change from "sup name" to "syntax 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15". sup name is also syntax 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 so this channge is minimal. * posixGroup and posixAccount change from structural to auxillary in rfc2307bis (allowing them to be combined with person or nsAccount). Objectively, rfc2307bis is the better schema - but as with all proposals like this, there is always a risk of breaking customers or compatibility. I'm wondering what would be a reasonable course of action for us to move to rfc2307bis by default. My current thoughts: * have rfc2307bis vs rfc2307 as an option to dssetup so we use the correct schema in the setup. * default the setup option to rfc2307bis * Tests for handling both setup options * Upgrades of the server should not affect the rfc2307 vs rfc2307bis status * A dsctl tool to allow changing between the rfc2307/rfc2307bis. Thoughts? Concern? Ideas? Comments? [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02 — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs