<div dir="ltr">What's the point of putting off a potential name change to the actual code (where you're going to see more friction because names in the code do not match names in the spec, and this becomes a point where confusion can happen). I understand the idea that code may not exactly match the spec, but when it's obvious that it should, why use the wrong name in the spec?<div>
<br></div><div>Isn't it more confusing when the API does not match database object names when it's clear the API is specifically meant to manipulate those database objects?<br><div><br></div><div>Is that naming convention actually documented anywhere? And why are you calling it a 'listenersniassociations'? There is no "SNI" object in the database. (IMO, this is a terrible name that needs to be re-read three times just to pick out where the word breaks should be! As written it looks like "Listeners NI Associations" what the heck is an 'NI'?)</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>They say that there are two hard problems in Computer Science:</div><div>* Cache invalidation</div><div>* Naming things</div><div>* Off-by-one errors</div><div><br></div><div>And far be it from me to pick nits about a name (OK, I guess it's isn't that far fetched for me to pick nits. :P ), but it's hard for me to imagine a worse name than 'listenersniassocaitions' being considered. :P</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stephen</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:EvgenyF@radware.com" target="_blank">EvgenyF@radware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Hi folks<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Regarding names, there are two types of them: new API attributes for REST call, and new column name and table name for the database.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">When creating listener, 2 new attributes will be added to the REST call API:
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">default_tls_container_id - Barbican TLS container uuid<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">sni_container_ids (I removed the “_list” part to make it shorter) – ordered list of Barbican TLS container uuids<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">For the database, these will be translated to:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">default_tls_container_id- new column for
<i>listeners</i> table<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">listenersniassociations (changed it from vipsniassociations which is a mistake) – new associations table, holding: id(generated),
listener_id, TLS_container_id, and position(for ordering)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">This kind of a name comes to comply current neutron’s table name convention, like pollmonitorassociation or providerresourceassociation<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I think names may always be an issue for the actual code review, the document is just a functional specification<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Since new objects model code is not landed yet, naming conventions may be changed while implementing this spec.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I will commit the document with all comments addressed and mentioned above names.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Please review it and give your feedback, I think we are close to complete this one )
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Evg<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:<a href="mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com" target="_blank">Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:34 AM</span></p><div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks for the details Evg!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I understand there was no TLS settings API originally planned.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> Stephen Balukoff [<a href="mailto:sbalukoff@bluebox.net" target="_blank">mailto:sbalukoff@bluebox.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Evgeny--<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two minor nits:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Your spec lists the new SNI related settings 'sni_list' (and it contains more than just IDs, so calling it '<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">sni_container_ids_list' is misleading). Please
be precise in the terms you use, and don't switch them mid discussion. :)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">* Also, I personally really hate long table names when they're unnecessary. "vipsniassociations" isn't mentioned in your spec anywhere, and frankly, is a lot
worse than "sni_list." I personally prefer "SNIPolicies", but I'm also OK with a short name like "sni_list".</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Otherwise I agree with you on all points.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Stephen</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk <<a href="mailto:EvgenyF@radware.com" target="_blank">EvgenyF@radware.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Vijay, there is no intension for a new TLS settings API.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Creation of a listener with TLS offloading will be one-step.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">When tenant creates listener with TERMINATED-HTTPS protocol he must supply default_tls_container_id
for offloading.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Not supplying default TLS container id for offloading for TERMINATED-HTTPS listener will raise an
error.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">SNI list may or may not be supplied by the tenant. Default value for SNI certificates list is an
empty list.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">So listener resource will have another two attributes: default_tls_container_id and sni_container_ids_list.
These are relevant for TERMINATED-HTTPS protocol listeners only. In other cases its default value are ‘None’ and empty list.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In schema, Default_tls_container_id will be added to listener object as another column.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sni_container_ids_list wil be managed by new table “vipsniassociations” which has listener_id, container_id,
and position (for ordering) columns</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Does it make sense?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Evg</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:<a href="mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com" target="_blank">Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:31 PM</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">To clarify, the request is for a new TLS settings API with “default_tls_container_id” & “sni_list”.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If there is a new API, then we would have an object model reflecting this as a separate entity.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The tenant would do the following</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Create a listener with TERMINATED_HTTPS
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Set the TLS settings for the listener using /v2.0/listener/<listenerid>/tlssettings (if at all we are having some default values this can be reflected here)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The only good thing is the separation of the TLS settings out of the listener API.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">But, I can see 2 downsides
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">The loadbalancer creation is a 2 step procedure
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">We cannot enforce certificate attachment as part of the create of listener.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If the new API itself has “-1”s then I am perfectly OK with the current object model with default_tls_container_id
in listener table.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Vijay V.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> Evgeny Fedoruk [<a href="mailto:EvgenyF@Radware.com" target="_blank">mailto:EvgenyF@Radware.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#008800;background:#ddffdd">Vipsniassociations table:
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Line 147 in last patch of the document</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Vijay Venkatachalam [<a href="mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">>>SNI list is managed by separate entity</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">What is this entity?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> Evgeny Fedoruk [<a href="mailto:EvgenyF@Radware.com" target="_blank">mailto:EvgenyF@Radware.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">+1 for option 1. SNI list is managed by separate entity, default TLS container is part of a listener
object. It will have None value when listener does not offloads TLS.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Managing another entity for 1:0-1 relationship just for future use seems not right to me. Breaking
TLS settings apart from listener can be done when needed, if needed.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Evg</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Stephen Balukoff [<a href="mailto:sbalukoff@bluebox.net" target="_blank">mailto:sbalukoff@bluebox.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ok, so we've got opinions on both sides of the argument here. I'm actually pretty ambivalent about it. Do others have strong opinions on this?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Doug Wiegley <<a href="mailto:dougw@a10networks.com" target="_blank">dougw@a10networks.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Put me down for being in favor of option 1.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">A single attribute in a 1:1 relationship? Putting that in a new table sounds like premature optimization
to me; design the database change for the future feature when you can see the spec for it.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Thanks,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Doug</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Stephen Balukoff <<a href="mailto:sbalukoff@bluebox.net" target="_blank">sbalukoff@bluebox.net</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <<a href="mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, June 23, 2014 at 5:25 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <<a href="mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for listener be set through separate API/model?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Also to add to pros for 2:
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">* Keeping the TLS stuff contained to its own objects means we can have separate development resources
on each and not worry as much about overlapping domains. (TLS-related knowledge and knowledge of dealing with TCP / UDP listeners are separate knowledge domains. Or at least, the former is a more specialized subset of the latter.)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Note that what we're proposing means there's essentially a 1:0-1 relationship between Listener and
this new yet-to-be-named object. (0 in case the Listener is not terminating TLS.)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Stephen</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Brandon Logan <<a href="mailto:brandon.logan@rackspace.com" target="_blank">brandon.logan@rackspace.com</a>>
wrote:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Whoops, [Neutron][LBaaS] got taken out of the subject line here.<br>
Putting it back in.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 21:10 +0000, Brandon Logan wrote:<br>
> Okay so we've talked a bit about this in IRC and now I'm sending this<br>
> out as an update. Here are the options with pros and cons that have<br>
> come from that discussion.<br>
><br>
> 1) default_certificate_id is an attribute of the Listener object.<br>
><br>
> Pros:<br>
> -No extra entity needed<br>
><br>
> Cons:<br>
> -May bloat Listener object when more attributes are needed for only TLS<br>
> termination. Sounds like TLS version and cipher selection will be<br>
> needed attributes in the future.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2) A separate TLS Entity is created that is referenced by the Listener<br>
> object. This entity at first may only contain a certificate_id that<br>
> references barbican. Name and description can be allowed as well.<br>
><br>
> Pros:<br>
> -TLS domain specific attributes contained in its own entity<br>
> -Future attributes would just be added to this entity and not bloat the<br>
> Listener object.<br>
><br>
> Cons:<br>
> -It's another entity<br>
><br>
> In IRC we (sbalukoff, myself) seemed to agree option 2 is right way to<br>
> go. Anyone agree or disagree?<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Brandon<br>
><br>
> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 12:15 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:<br>
> > The separate entity makes sense for certificates participating in an<br>
> > SNI configuration, but probably not so much for the 'default'<br>
> > certificate used when TLS is being terminated.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Vijay: You're also right that other TLS-related attributes will<br>
> > probably get added to the Listener object. This probably makes sense<br>
> > if they apply to the Listener object as a whole. (This includes things<br>
> > like TLS version and cipher selection.)<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I don't see much of a point in creating a separate object to contain<br>
> > these fields, since it would have a 1:1 relationship with the<br>
> > Listener. It's true that for non-TLS-terminated Listeners, these<br>
> > fields wouldn't be used, but isn't that already the case in many other<br>
> > objects (not just in the Neutron LBaaS sub project)?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> > Stephen<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Brandon Logan<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:brandon.logan@rackspace.com" target="_blank">brandon.logan@rackspace.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Vijay,<br>
> > I think the separate entity is still going to happen. I don't<br>
> > think it<br>
> > has remvoed. Or that is may just be my assumption.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> > Brandon<br>
> ><br>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 15:59 +0000, Vijay Venkatachalam wrote:<br>
> > > Hi:<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > In the “LBaaS TLS termination capability specification”<br>
> > proposal<br>
> > ><br>
> > > <a href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640/" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640/</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > > TLS settings like default certificate container id and SNI<br>
> > cert list are part of the listener properties.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I think it is better to have this as a separate entity so<br>
> > that the listener properties are clean and is not “corrupted”<br>
> > with TLS settings.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I liked the original SSL proposal better where TLS settings<br>
> > was a separate entity.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > It is just 2 properties now but in future the TLS settings<br>
> > would grow and if we are going to introduce a TLS<br>
> > profile/params/settings entity later, it is better to do it<br>
> > now (albeit with min properties).<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Thanks,<br>
> > > Vijay V.<br>
> ><br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Stephen Balukoff<br>
> > Blue Box Group, LLC<br>
> > <a href="tel:%28800%29613-4305%20x807" target="_blank">(800)613-4305 x807</a><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><br>
<br clear="all">
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">--
<br>
Stephen Balukoff <br>
Blue Box Group, LLC <br>
<a href="tel:%28800%29613-4305%20x807" target="_blank">(800)613-4305 x807</a> </span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--
<br>
Stephen Balukoff <br>
Blue Box Group, LLC <br>
<a href="tel:%28800%29613-4305%20x807" target="_blank">(800)613-4305 x807</a> <u></u>
<u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
Stephen Balukoff <br>
Blue Box Group, LLC <br>
<a href="tel:%28800%29613-4305%20x807" value="+18006134305" target="_blank">(800)613-4305 x807</a> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><span></span>Stephen Balukoff
<br>Blue Box Group, LLC
<br>(800)613-4305 x807
</div>