Open Stack

Congress happens to have the capability to run a script/API call under
arbitrary conditions on the state of other OpenStack projects, which
sounded like what you wanted.  Or did I misread your original question?

Congress and Mistral are definitely not competing.    Congress lets people
declare which states of the other OpenStack projects are permitted using a
general purpose policy language, but it does not try to make complex
changes (often requiring a workflow) to eliminate prohibited states.
Mistral lets people create a workflow that makes complex changes to other
OpenStack projects, but it doesn't have a general purpose policy language
that describes which states are permitted.  Congress and Mistral are
complementary, and each can stand on its own.

Tim


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:46 AM Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/06/2015 06:28 PM, Tim Hinrichs wrote:
>
> Congress allows users to write a policy that executes an action under
> certain conditions.
>
> The conditions can be based on any data Congress has access to, which
> includes nova servers, neutron networks, cinder storage, keystone users,
> etc.  We also have some Ceilometer statistics; I'm not sure about whether
> it's easy to get the Keystone notifications that you're talking about
> today, but notifications are on our roadmap.  If the user's login is
> reflected in the Keystone API, we may already be getting that event.
>
> The action could in theory be a mistral/heat API or an arbitrary script.
> Right now we're set up to invoke any method on any of the python-clients
> we've integrated with.  We've got an integration with heat but not
> mistral.  New integrations are typically easy.
>
>
> Sounds like Mistral and Congress are competing here, then.  Maybe we
> should merge those efforts.
>
>
>
> Happy to talk more.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:17 AM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Excerpts from Dolph Mathews's message of 2015-11-05 16:31:28 -0600:
>> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-05 10:09:49 -0800:
>> > > > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-05 09:51:41 -0800:
>> > > > > Excerpts from Adam Young's message of 2015-11-05 12:34:12 -0500:
>> > > > > > Can people help me work through the right set of tools for this
>> use
>> > > case
>> > > > > > (has come up from several Operators) and map out a plan to
>> implement
>> > > it:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Large cloud with many users coming from multiple Federation
>> sources
>> > > has
>> > > > > > a policy of providing a minimal setup for each user upon first
>> visit
>> > > to
>> > > > > > the cloud:  Create a project for the user with a minimal quota,
>> and
>> > > > > > provide them a role assignment.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Here are the gaps, as I see it:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1.  Keystone provides a notification that a user has logged in,
>> but
>> > > > > > there is nothing capable of executing on this notification at
>> the
>> > > > > > moment.  Only Ceilometer listens to Keystone notifications.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2.  Keystone does not have a workflow engine, and should not be
>> > > > > > auto-creating projects.  This is something that should be
>> performed
>> > > via
>> > > > > > a Heat template, and Keystone does not know about Heat, nor
>> should
>> > > it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 3.  The Mapping code is pretty static; it assumes a user entry
>> or a
>> > > > > > group entry in identity when creating a role assignment, and
>> neither
>> > > > > > will exist.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We can assume a special domain for Federated users to have
>> per-user
>> > > > > > projects.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So; lets assume a Heat Template that does the following:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1. Creates a user in the per-user-projects domain
>> > > > > > 2. Assigns a role to the Federated user in that project
>> > > > > > 3. Sets the minimal quota for the user
>> > > > > > 4. Somehow notifies the user that the project has been set up.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This last probably assumes an email address from the Federated
>> > > > > > assertion.  Otherwise, the user hits Horizon, gets a "not
>> > > authenticated
>> > > > > > for any projects" error, and is stumped.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > How is quota assignment done in the other projects now?  What
>> happens
>> > > > > > when a project is created in Keystone?  Does that information
>> gets
>> > > > > > transferred to the other services, and, if so, how?  Do most
>> people
>> > > use
>> > > > > > a custom provisioning tool for this workflow?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I know at Dreamhost we built some custom integration that was
>> triggered
>> > > > > when someone turned on the Dreamcompute service in their account
>> in our
>> > > > > existing user management system. That integration created the
>> account
>> > > in
>> > > > > keystone, set up a default network in neutron, etc. I've long
>> thought
>> > > we
>> > > > > needed a "new tenant creation" service of some sort, that sits
>> outside
>> > > > > of our existing services and pokes them to do something when a new
>> > > > > tenant is established. Using heat as the implementation makes
>> sense,
>> > > for
>> > > > > things that heat can control, but we don't want keystone to
>> depend on
>> > > > > heat and we don't want to bake such a specialized feature into
>> heat
>> > > > > itself.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I agree, an automation piece that is built-in and easy to add to
>> > > > OpenStack would be great.
>> > > >
>> > > > I do not agree that it should be Heat. Heat is for managing stacks
>> that
>> > > > live on and change over time and thus need the complexity of the
>> graph
>> > > > model Heat presents.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd actually say that Mistral or Ansible are better choices for
>> this. A
>> > > > service which listens to the notification bus and triggered a
>> workflow
>> > > > defined somewhere in either Ansible playbooks or Mistral's workflow
>> > > > language would simply run through the "skel" workflow for each user.
>> > > >
>> > > > The actual workflow would probably almost always be somewhat site
>> > > > specific, but it would make sense for Keystone to include a few
>> basic
>> > > ones
>> > > > as "contrib" elements. For instance, the "notify the user" piece
>> would
>> > > > likely be simplest if you just let the workflow tool send an email.
>> But
>> > > > if your cloud has Zaqar, you may want to use that as well or
>> instead.
>> > > >
>> > > > Adding Mistral here to see if they have some thoughts on how this
>> > > > might work.
>> > > >
>> > > > BTW, if this does form into a new project, I suggest naming it
>> > > > Skeleton[1]
>> > >
>> > > Following the pattern of Kite's naming, I think a Dirigible is a
>> > > better way to get users into the cloud. :-)
>> > >
>> >
>> > lol +1
>> >
>> > Is this use case specifically for keystone-to-keystone, or for
>> federation
>> > in general?
>>
>> The use case I had in mind was actually signing up a new user for
>> a cloud (at Dreamhost that meant enabling a paid service in their
>> account in the existing management tool outside of OpenStack). I'm not
>> sure how it relates to federation, but it seems like that might just be
>> another trigger for something similar, though not exactly the same? A
>> federated user would also presumably need things like a default network,
>> for example, though it may not need anything added to the keystone
>> database.
>>
>> > As an outcome of the Vancouver summit, we had a use case for mirroring a
>> > federated user's project ID from the identity provider cloud to the
>> service
>> > provider cloud. The goal would be that a user can burst into a second
>> cloud
>> > and immediately receive a token scoped to the same project ID that
>> they're
>> > already familiar with (which implies a role assignment of some sort; for
>> > example, member). That would have to be done in real time though, not
>> by a
>> > secondary service.
>> >
>> > And with shadow users, we're looking at creating an identity (basically,
>> > nothing but a user_id) in the second cloud anyway. And as another
>> > consequence of shadow users, they wouldn't be getting a "federated
>> token"
>> > of any sort, but rather a simpler, local token, referencing a local
>> > identity (the user_id that was just created automatically).
>> >
>> > Adam, does any of this align with your use case?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Doug
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://goo.gl/photos/EML6EPKeqRXioWfd8 (that was my front
>> yard..)
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> > >
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151109/1f5775e2/attachment.html>