Open Stack

Isnt it more complex than this? What if an V3 admin has set up an 
OpenStack system with multiple domains, but some services are still 
using the V2 API. In this case they cant (or shouldn't) all occupy the 
default domain. Rather, as I argued in an earlier posting, there should 
be an intercept module in the Keystone code that converts the domain and 
role into <domain><separator><role> (where separator is a configurable 
string according to culture, language, char set etc.) and returns this 
to the V2 api as the role (since it does not know about domains). Then 
the reverse conversion is done when the V2 API passes in the role. The 
only thing the V2 service needs to do is change its policy so that 
wherever role is specified in a rule it is now replaced by 
<domain><separator><role> as the role string. A string is just a string 
to a policy engine so it wont care that the string is now longer and has 
some hidden internal meaning.

regards

David


On 22/01/2013 15:07, Henry Nash wrote:
> OK, here is how I suggest we proceed:
>
> First, there are two separate (but related) items:
>
> 1) How do we migrate v2 users across?  I don't think anyone is arguing that they should not  go into a default domain  - we need a way of letting the v2 api work on users migrated across to Grizzly.  Dolph has a change pending to create the default domain, which I will then pick up and do the actual migration code as part of the domain_scoping change (since I need domains to be fully supported for that).  I suggest, we let Dolph's change go in since there is no debate about it.
> 2) What happens in v3 if a call is made to create an entity (user, group, project etc.) where the optional domain_id is not specified?  That is what all the options relate to.  There are really only 3 options (since Dolph's additions of D & E are actually duplicates of mine since I was not trying to suggest that we would override a domain_id if it IS specified).  Dolph and I will bring forward the proposed design/blueprint that specifies the proposal for these v3 calls in more detail.
>
> Does this sound like a plan?
>
> Henry
>
> On 22 Jan 2013, at 14:30, David Chadwick wrote:
>
>> I think a fully specified design document would be good before the implementation is hardened :-)
>>
>> On 22/01/2013 12:47, Adam Young wrote:
>>> On 01/22/2013 12:25 AM, Yee, Guang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is D) even possible, since token can only scope to one domain at a time?
>>>>
>>>> Guang
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Dolph Mathews [mailto:dolph.mathews at gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:26 AM
>>>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] A default domain
>>>>
>>>> Yay! I'd be curious if anyone is particularly in favor of D, otherwise
>>>> I think we should run with A.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Dolph
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Henry Nash <henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com
>>>> <mailto:henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Jan 2013, at 05:19, Dolph Mathews wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Henry Nash <henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com
>>>> <mailto:henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Building on the question on how the v3 APIs might operation (e.g.
>>>> create user, project etc.) when the (optional) domain_id is
>>>> omitted....first some goals:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We want those cloud providers who don't need domains to be able to
>>>> use either the v2 or v3 api calls - i.e. they can use the latest s/w
>>>> and still operate their cloud like it was in Folsom (in terms of
>>>> keystone user-project relationships).
>>>>
>>>> 2) For operators that start using domains, we want it to be
>>>> conceptually obvious what sets of entities that various api calls will
>>>> be able to see.  This needs to take into account  domains with private
>>>> user or project namespaces.
>>>>
>>>> Taking this bp as a stating point in terms of having a default domain
>>>> (that will contain any pre-Girzzly user and projects/tenants), what
>>>> happens when a v3 API call is made to create a user or project without
>>>> specifying a domain?  The options are:
>>>>
>>>> a) Create the entity in the domain of the user doing the creation.  If
>>>> this is a user that exists in the default domain (e.g. a pre-Grizzly
>>>> user), then that's where the new resource goes (I would assume we
>>>> treat "admin" as being in the default domain).
>>>>
>>>> b) Always create the entity in the default domain
>>>>
>>>> c) Insist on the specification of a domain if more than just the
>>>> default domain exists (i.e. it's a multi-domain configuration)
>>>>
>>>> d) Always insist on the specification of a domain
>>>>
>>>> e) Create the entity in the domain of the user doing the creation,
>>>> unless another domain is specified.
>>>>
>>>> (A) is broken in use cases where I need to be allowed to create users
>>>> in other domains (creating domains and users to administer them, for
>>>> instance).
>>>>
>>>> (B) is broken for the same reason; I shouldn't have to create an
>>>> object and then move it to where I want it to go.
>>>>
>>>> (C) brings up some questions that I worry will only lead to bug
>>>> reports (what if I deleted the default domain but I still have this
>>>> other domain that doesn't match the default_domain_id, etc)
>>>>
>>>> (D) is obvious, but perhaps inconvenient for a subset of users (those
>>>> that ONLY administer their own domain).
>>>>
>>>> (E) offers the convenience of (A) with the power of (D). I can't think
>>>> of a use case that this breaks?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We create a component which is DomainResolutionStrategy.  There are 5
>>> concrete implementations, which map to A-E above.  Specify which to use
>>> in the config file.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually this is what I meant by (a)....since I was listing the
>>>> options for what we do when the user does NOT specify the optional
>>>> domain in the create call...so we are in violent agreement!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Allied to this is authentication....since a domain specifier is
>>>>     also optional in terms of the v3 auth details, which is relevant
>>>>     if username rather than user_id is specified:
>>>>
>>>>     i) user name (and project name for that matter) are still unique
>>>>     across all domains (including the default domain) except for those
>>>>     domains with a private name space.  So it would be perfectly
>>>>     possible to authenticate by searching for a user/project name in
>>>>     any domain other than those with private name spaces.  The
>>>>     advantage of this is that a domain specifier is ONLY required to
>>>>     access a domain with a private user namespace - access to all
>>>>     other domains doesn't need to worry about domains in terms of
>>>>     authentication (this is what is described in the domain-name-space
>>>>     blueprint).  The only question is whether this passes the test 2)
>>>>     above in terms of being obvious.  The alternative is to insist on
>>>>     a domain specifier to get to authenticate any user not in the
>>>>     default domain.
>>>>
>>>>     ii) The v2 authentication remains unchanged, of course, and will
>>>>     look for the user and tenant name in the default domain.  In
>>>>     theory, we could let such calls use the same search as i) to allow
>>>>     users who are not part of a private domain to authenticate via the
>>>>     v2 API.  However, I think this definitely fails the 2) obvious
>>>>     test and so we should not do this.
>>>>
>>>>     In terms of which of the options a), b) or c) we should chose in
>>>>     the creation question above, I think b) is unlikely to match
>>>>     typical use cases (i.e. if you have domains and have created users
>>>>     within them, you are unlikely to often want to create users in the
>>>>     default domain).  So the choice is between a) and c).  While c)
>>>>     certainly provides no ambiguity, I would think that a) would match
>>>>     the most common usage patterns, and is also not disruptive if you
>>>>     missed off specifying the domain by mistake (since you only affect
>>>>     your own domain).
>>>>
>>>>     Other ideas/comments?
>>>>
>>>>     Henry
>>>>
>>>>     On 16 Jan 2013, at 22:00, Dolph Mathews wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     New installs run through the migration process of course, so they
>>>>     would end up with a default domain, even if there's nothing
>>>>     referencing it. The v2 API would not work out of the box, otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>     If you didn't want to support the v2 API in your deployment, you'd
>>>>     have to manually remove the v2-related pipelines from your
>>>>     keystone.conf, and then you could manually delete the default
>>>>     domain through SQL (if desired -- it's still a valid domain on
>>>>     v3). Attempting to delete it through the v3 API would break the v2
>>>>     API, hence the desire to deny that behavior and force a manual
>>>>     process. All of these constraints could be removed in the
>>>>     Grizzly+2 timeframe, if we see fit to no longer support v2 at all
>>>>     (at that point, the data migration could be revised to only create
>>>>     a default domain *if it was necessary based on existing data*, so
>>>>     fresh Grizzly+2 installs would be empty out of the box).
>>>>
>>>>     Alternatively, if you wanted to expose a different domain on v2,
>>>>     you could also create & configure it on v3, and then set your
>>>>     default_domain_id to that domain's ID, and then delete the unused
>>>>     'default' domain through the API (e.g. DELETE
>>>>     /v3/domains/default). You could use a similar process to
>>>>     completely circumvent the dont-delete-the-default-domain check.
>>>>
>>>>     LDAP support for domains is trailing at the moment, so I'm
>>>>     speaking mostly with an eye toward SQL, but the default_domain_id
>>>>     will apply there as well -- we just won't be able to create the
>>>>     domain for you.
>>>>
>>>>     All that said, although it's relatively early in the grizzly-m3
>>>>     cycle, I don't imagine you will want to deploy Grizzly without v2
>>>>     support as there will still be v2 clients in use, even among the
>>>>     core projects.
>>>>
>>>>     -Dolph
>>>>
>>>>     On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Brant Knudson <blk at acm.org
>>>>     <mailto:blk at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Dolph -
>>>>
>>>>     The bp mentions migration, but it doesn't mention new installs.
>>>>     Does a new install automatically get the default domain?
>>>>
>>>>     The bp says that you can also not have a default domain, but the
>>>>     default_domain_id configuration option has a default. What do I
>>>>     set the configuration option to if I don't have a default domain?
>>>>
>>>>     The bp says that an attempt to delete the default domain will
>>>>     result in 403 Forbidden. In the case where there is no default
>>>>     domain you should get a 404 Not Found rather than 403.
>>>>
>>>>     - Brant
>>>>
>>>>     On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Dolph Mathews
>>>>     <dolph.mathews at gmail.com <mailto:dolph.mathews at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Per today's keystone meeting, I wrote a blueprint for the
>>>>         default domain solution, in order to provide an assumed scope
>>>>         for v2 API operations (which is not domain-aware), including
>>>>         authentication and validation, in the context of a deployment
>>>>         with v3 API users (which are domain-aware).
>>>>
>>>>         https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/default-domain
>>>>
>>>>         Feedback appreciated,
>>>>
>>>>         -Dolph
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>         OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>         <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>