<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style><style type="text/css"></style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Courier New;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>>From: Duncan Thomas [duncan.thomas@gmail.com]</div>
<div>>Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 5:40 AM</div>
<div>>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List</div>
<div>>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Where should Schema files live?</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>Duncan Thomas</div>
<div>>On Nov 27, 2014 10:32 PM, "Sandy Walsh" <sandy.walsh@rackspace.com> wrote:</div>
<div>>></div>
<div>>> We were thinking each service API would expose their schema via a new /schema resource (or something). Nova would expose its schema. Glance its own. etc. This would also work well for installations still using older deployments.</div>
<div>>This feels like externally exposing info that need not be external (since the notifications are not external to the deploy) and it sounds like it will potentially leak fine detailed version and maybe deployment config details that you don't want to make
public - either for commercial reasons or to make targeted attacks harder </div>
<div>></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yep, good point. Makes a good case for standing up our own service or just relying on the tarballs being in a well know place. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the feedback.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p></p>
<div>-S</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px;">
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>