<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, David Chadwick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk" target="_blank">d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Further supplementary information to Adam's email below, is that there are already one further federation protocol profiles that has been published:<br>
for an external Keystone acting as an IdP at<br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42107/" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#<u></u>/c/42107/</a><br>
<br>
and another for SAML has been prepared and is ready for publication.<br>
<br>
I would expect several additional federation profiles to be published in the future, for example, for OpenID Connect and what ever else might be just around the corner.<br>
<br>
Given the fact that the number of federation protocols is not fixed, and will evolve with time, then I would prefer their method of integration into Keystone to be common, so that one "federation" module can handle all the non-protocol specific federation features, such as policy and trust checking, and this module can have multiple different protocol handling modules plugged into it that deal with the protocol specific features only. This is the method we have adopted in our current implementation of federation, and have shown that it is a viable and efficient way of implementation as we currently support three protocol profiles (SAML, ABFAB and External Keystone).<br>
<br>
Thus I prefer<br>
<br>
"method": "federation" "protocol": "abfab"<br>
<br>
in which the abfab part would be replaced by the particular protocol, and there are common parameters to be used by the federation module </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
instead of "method": "abfab"<br>
<br>
as the latter removes the common parameters from federation, and also means that common code wont be used, unless it is cut and paste into each protocol specific module.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That sounds like a pretty strong argument in favor of the current design, assuming the "abfab" parameters are children of the common "federation" parameters (rather than a sibling of the "federation" parameters)... which does appear to be the case the current patchset- <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42221/" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#<u></u>/c/42221/</a><br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Comments?<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
David</font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/09/2013 16:25, Adam Young wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
David Chadwick wrote up an in depth API extension for Federation:<br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39499" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#<u></u>/c/39499</a><br>
There is an abfab API proposal as well:<br>
<a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42221/" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#<u></u>/c/42221/</a><br>
<br>
After discussing this for a while, it dawned on me that Federation<br>
should not be something bolted on to Keystone, but rather that it was<br>
already central to the design.<br>
<br>
The SQL Identity backend is a simple password store that collects users<br>
into groups. This makes it an identity provider (IdP).<br>
Now Keystone can register multiple LDAP servers as Identity backends.<br>
<br>
There are requests for SAML and ABFAB integration into Keystone as well.<br>
<br>
Instead of a "Federation API" Keystone should take the key concepts<br>
from the API and make them core concepts. What would this mean:<br>
<br>
1. Instead of "method": "federation" "protocol": "abfab" it would be<br>
"method": "abfab",<br>
2. The rules about multiple round trips (phase) would go under the<br>
"abfab" section.<br>
3. There would not be a "protocol_data" section but rather that would<br>
be the "abfab" section as well.<br>
4. Provider ID would be standard in the method specific section.<br>
<br>
One question that has come up has been about Providers, and whether they<br>
should be considered endpoints in the Catalog. THere is a couple issues<br>
wiuth this: one is that they are not something managed by OpenStack,<br>
and two is that they are not necessarily Web Protocols. As such,<br>
Provider should probably be First class citizen. We already have LDAP<br>
handled this way, although not as an enumerated entity. For the first<br>
iteration, I would like to see ABFAB, SAML, and any other protocols we<br>
support done the same way as LDAP: a deliberate configuration option<br>
for Keystone that will require a config file change.<br>
<br>
David and I have discussed this in a side conversation, and agree that<br>
it requires wider input.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><br></div>-Dolph
</div></div>