maintainer. I don't think that SSO-LIR should be the standard, but it
should be an option in my opinion.
maintainer.
On 2019-01-07 11:48, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote on 07/01/2019 10:27:
>> I think the current main suggestion is to add a new DB auth scheme,
>> such as "auth: SSO-LIR no.foobar" that includes all the SSO accounts
>> linked to the LIR except for Billing accounts.
>
> Denis is just pointing out that it may not be advisable to statically
> tie this into a potentially inflexible mechanism like the main LIR
> authentication list. You can be guaranteed that if this were done,
> someone would come along with a credible reason to have a LIR account
> with admin control over portal stuff, but not direct DB control of a
> specific object or set of objects.
>
> One possible option to work around this limitation would be to create
> a new db object type, "sso-set", which could contain a list of SSO
> account names, e.g.:
>
> sso-set: FOOBAR1-RIPE
> descr: List of SSO tokens for no.foobar
> members:
foo@example.com> members:
bar@example.org> mnt-by: TBD1-RIPE
> source: RIPE
>
> Each LIR would be able to define sso-sets with arbitrary contents and
> tie them to objects, e.g. like this:
>
> auth: SSO-SET FOOBAR1-RIPE
>
> There would need to be some thought put into how to handle mnt-by: for
> the sso-set object (quis custodiet ipsos custodes)?
>
> Nick
>