<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/12/2012 11:33 AM, Mellquist,
      Peter wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:F7DACD2842D0844DACB472968051D2E221F5E823@G4W3293.americas.hpqcorp.net"
      type="cite">
      <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
        level1 lfo1"><span
          style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D"><span
            style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
              New Roman"">       
            </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">How

          are you proposing to allow cross tenant access? For example,
          the case where one tenant has an admin role to access another
          tenant’s resources.  With existing OS APIs which organize
          resources by tenant, {tenantId}/resources/… , the admin’s
          tenant & role are part of the Keystone headers so it is
          straightforward for the service to control this. Quantum 2.0
          has proposed an query param ’? tenant_id=X’ to handle this.</span></p>
    </blockquote>
    Heat's orchestration model is for a user to orchestrate their own
    resources isolated within their own tenant. This is a design choice
    rather than a technical limitation. For this reason I don't think
    there is a need at this point for cross-tenant API features.<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:F7DACD2842D0844DACB472968051D2E221F5E823@G4W3293.americas.hpqcorp.net"
      type="cite">
      <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
        level1 lfo1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
      <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
        level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
          style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D"><span
            style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
              New Roman"">       
            </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Do

          you need to handle a use case where you would move stacks from
          one tenant to another? How would this be done with no
          tenant_id in the resource?</span></p>
    </blockquote>
    Indeed. I'm actually advocating that we always have the tenant_id in
    the URL.<br>
    <br>
    cheers<br>
  </body>
</html>