Re: [Pki-devel] [PATCH] 198-203 patches to address multiple issues in KeyResource server and client code.
On 2/24/2014 4:47 PM, John Magne wrote:
ACK 201, comments below:
ACK for patch #201. Some comments:
1. Are we going to change the attribute name in the LDAP database? If so
do we need to upgrade the existing database?
I can see a case for leaving this the same. The user won't have big use
to look at the ldap.
Yeah, we don't have to upgrade the database now. But in the long term it
would be nice to have an attribute name that matches the client API.
On the second thought, what do you think about using "key
label" instead
of "client key ID"? So Key ID would remain the unique identifier for the
key, and the Key Label would be an identifier but it's not unique. No
need to redo the whole patch, just search & replace the patch. I can
help with this.
I think alee has done enough. The new name sounds fine to me. :) I
don't think
having ID in the name automatically implies that the uniqueness on the key itself.
It's more for the client to identify a set of keys with one being the active one.
Either name is fine. I just thought "label" is simpler. If we decided to
use label I can help make the changes, no extra work for alee :)
--
Endi S. Dewata