Open Stack

Adam Young wrote:
> Keep KDS configuration separate from the Keystone configuration: the
> fact that they both point to the same host and port is temporary.  In
> fact, we should probably spin up a separate wsgi service/port inside
> Keystone for just the KDS.  This is not hard to do, and will support
> splitting it off into its own service.
> 
> KDS should not show up in the Service catalog.  It is not an end user
> visible service and should not look like one to the rest of the world.
> 
> Once we have it up and running, we can move it to its own service or
> hand off to Barbican when appropriate.

Right, I think a decent trade-off between availability and avoiding code
duplication would be to have a minimal KDS available as an option in
Keystone, with Barbican/something-else being developed in parallel as
the complex/featureful/configurable option. If Barbican/something-else
reaches feature parity, covers the "basic and simple" use case and is
integrated, we could deprecate the in-Keystone minimal-KDS option.

I know this plan looks a bit like the nova-network chronicles, but I
think the domain is more simple so feature parity is not as much of a
challenge.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)