Open Stack

On 12/04/2013 12:35 PM, Henry Nash wrote:
>
> On 4 Dec 2013, at 13:28, Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dolph.mathews at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com 
>> <mailto:ayoung at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     The #1 pain point I hear from people in the field is that they
>>     need to consume read only  LDAP but have service users in
>>     something Keystone specific.  We are close to having this, but we
>>     have not closed the loop.  This was something that was Henry's to
>>     drive home to completion.  Do we have a plan?  Federation depends
>>     on this, I think, but this problem stands alone.
>>
>>
>> I'm still thinking through the idea of having keystone natively 
>> federate to itself out of the box, where keystone presents itself as 
>> an IdP (primarily for service users). It sounds like a simpler 
>> architectural solution than having to shuffle around code paths for 
>> both federated identities and local identities.
>>
>>
>>     Two Solutions:
>>     1 always require domain ID along with the user id for role
>>     assignments.
>>
>>
>> From an API perspective, how? (while still allowing for cross-domain 
>> role assignments)
>>
>>     2 provide some way to parse from the user ID what domain it is.
>>
>>
>> I think you meant this one the other way around: Determine the domain 
>> given the user ID.
>>
>>
>>     I was thinking that we could do something along the lines of 2
>>     where we provide  "domain specific user_id prefix"  for example,
>>     if there is just one ldpa service, and they wanted to prefix
>>     anyting out of ldap with "ldap@", then an id would be  "prefix"
>>      "field from LDAP".  And would be configured on a per domain
>>     basis.  THis would be optional.
>>
>>     The weakness is that itbe Log N to determine which Domain a
>>     user_id came from.  A better approach would be to use a divider,
>>     like '@' and then prefix would be the key for a hashtable lookup.
>>      Since it is optional, domains could still be stored in SQL and
>>     user_ids could be uuids.
>>
>>     One problem is if someone comes by later an "must" use email
>>     address as the userid, the @ would mess them up.  So The default
>>     divider should be something URL safe but no likely to be part of
>>     a userid. I realize that it might be impossible to match this
>>     criterion.
>>
>>
> I know this sounds a bit like "back to the future', but how about we 
> make a user_id passed via the API a structured binary field, 
> containing a concatenation of domain_id and (the actual) user_id, but 
> rather than have a separator, encode the start positions in the first 
> few digits, e.g. something like:
This might be the most insane idea I have heard all day.  I love it.

>
> Digit #Meaning
> 0-1Start position of domain_id, (e.g. this will usually be 4)
> 2-3Start position of user_id
> 4-Ndomain_id
> M-enduser_id

I suspect it is more of a brainstorming attempt than as an actual 
proposal.  It can't be binary for many reasons, and strings parsing gets 
wonky, especially if you assume utf-8  is in there (how many bytes per 
character?)

The interesting idea is appending the domain id instead of prepending 
it.  It may be an irrelevant change, but worth mulling.

An interesting approach would be to do domain prepended user ids using 
/  so that

user/domain  is the ID, and then the URL would be automagically 
segmented:  If they leave off the domain, then the userid by itself 
would still be valid.


>
> We would run a migration that would convert all existing mappings. 
>  Further, we would ensure (with padding if necessary) that this "new" 
> user_id is ALWAYS larger than 64chars - hence we could easily detect 
> which type of ID we had.
>
>> For usernames, sure... but I don't know why anyone would care to use 
>> email addresses as ID's.
>>
>>
>>     Actually, there might be other reasons to forbid @ signs from
>>     IDs, as they look like phishing attempts in URLs.
>>
>>
>> Phishing attempts?? They need to be encoded anyway...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> -Dolph
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org 
>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> 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/20131216/44bf131e/attachment.html>