Re: [Pki-devel] [Freeipa-devel] [DESIGN] Lightweight CA renewal

Hi, On 6.5.2016 08:01, Fraser Tweedale wrote: > Hullo all, > > FreeIPA Lightweight CAs implementation is progressing well. The > remaining big unknown in the design is how to do renewal. I have > put my ideas into the design page[1] and would appreciate any and > all feedback! > > [1] http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Sub-CAs#Renewal > > Some brief commentary on the options: > > I intend to implement approach (1) as a baseline. Apart from > implementing machinery in Dogtag to actually perform the renewal - > which is required for all the approaches - it's not much work and > gets us over the "lightweight CAs can be renewed easily" line, even > if it is a manual process. > > For automatic renewal, I am leaning towards approach (2). Dogtag > owns the lightweight CAs so I think it makes sense to give Dogtag > the ability to renew them automatically (if configured to do so), > without relying on external tools i.e. Certmonger. But as you will > see from the outlines, each approach has its upside and downside. I would prefer (3), as I would very much like to avoid duplicating certmonger's functionality in Dogtag. Some comments on the disadvantages: * "Proliferation of Certmonger tracking requests; one for each FreeIPA-managed lightweight CA." I don't think this is an actual issue, as it's purely cosmetic. * "Either lightweight CA creation is restricted to the renewal master, or the renewal master must observe the creation of new lightweight CAs and start tracking their certificate." IMO this doesn't have to be done automatically in the initial implementation. You could extend ipa-certupdate to set up certmonger for lightweight CAs and have admins run it manually on masters after adding a new lightweight CA. They will have to run it anyway to get the new lightweight CA certificate installed in the system, so it should be fine to do it this way.

* "Development of new Certmonger renewal helpers solely for lightweight CA renewal." It would be easier to extend the existing helpers. I don't think there is anything preventing them from being used for lighweight CAs, except not conveying the CA name, which should be easy to implement. I would also avoid starting with (1), I don't believe it adds any real value. IMHO the first thing that should be done is implement lightweight CA support in certmonger (add new 'request' / 'start-tracking' option for CA name, store it in tracking requests, pass it to CA helpers in a new environment variable). Honza -- Jan Cholasta