Open Stack

Hi John

the thrust of my message was to say that roles can be local as well as 
global. I dont see why this should conceptually break anything in Swift. 
All it requires is that the policy and engine with makes the authz 
decision for access to a Swift resource is changed so that it can know 
the difference between a local role and a global role. Currently it only 
recognises global roles, but when local roles are introduced the policy 
engine would need to be able to differentiate between local roles from 
different domains that have the same name. And it can easily do this, 
since the role name is pre-pended with the domain name and project name, 
so the entire strings are unique (though longer than before)

regards

David


On 08/01/2013 21:49, John Dickinson wrote:
> If that's the case, it's certainly possible to write middleware to support it. But it's completely different than all other auth systems and basic user concepts in Swift (eg you are only giving a user access to a container rather than a full account--this would necessitate massive doc changes and probably break all kinds of compatibility with existing client tools), and it's different than the way keystone today exposes Swift endpoints.
>
> --John
>
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2013, at 1:41 PM, "Bhandaru, Malini K" <malini.k.bhandaru at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>  From a mapping perspective, might one say the
>> "Domain" maps to Swift's "Account"
>> "Project"  maps to Swift's "Container"
>>
>> Thanks
>> Malini
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Chadwick [mailto:d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 12:53 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [swift] [keystone] Keystone v3 API domains in Swift
>>
>> Hi Alex
>>
>> I can agree with you but would go further, in that we need both global roles and local roles. So, if I specify
>>
>> https://swift/AUTH_>Test
>>
>> then I am specifying the Test global role, but if I specify
>>
>> https://swift/AUTH_>{DOMAIN_ID}_{PROJECT_ID}_Test
>>
>> I am specifying the role Test which is local to the project. Similarly
>>
>> https://swift/AUTH_>{DOMAIN_ID}_Test
>>
>> is the Test local role of the domain.
>>
>> These are unambiguous since the _ is the separator between domains and projects, rather like the . is the separator in domain names.
>>
>> Note, what you should not be able to do is specify
>>
>> https://swift/AUTH_>{PROJECT_ID}_Test
>>
>> as this would be ambiguous. Which domain does it refer to?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/01/2013 20:11, Alexandra Shulman-Peleg wrote:
>>> I think that there is a problem with simply using https://SWIFT/AUTH_
>>> <https://swift/AUTH_>{PROJECT_ID}instead of the current
>>> https://SWIFT/AUTH_ <https://swift/AUTH_>{TENANT_ID} since it will
>>> loose the proper level in the hierarchy. We need something that will
>>> represent the hosted enterprises and this is the goal of domains.
>>> Project are more fine-grained and can represent departments or
>>> projects.  For example, following the description of Henry if two
>>> different enterprises with use the project name "Test" both with map
>>> to https://SWIFT/AUTH_ <https://swift/AUTH_>Test.
>>>
>>> I think that we need to have both the domain id and the project id in
>>> the URL/account name. For example as https://SWIFT/AUTH_
>>> <https://swift/AUTH_>{DOMAIN_ID}_{PROJECT_ID} or as https://SWIFT/
>>> <https://swift/>{DOMAIN_ID}_{PROJECT_ID}. In the second option we may
>>> try using the existing reseller prefix mechanism to simplify the
>>> implementation. Having the doman_id in the account name/URL is
>>> important to isolate the accounts that belong to different domains and
>>> remove the requirements for the global uniqueness of project names.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Alex.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Chuck Thier <cthier at gmail.com>
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>,
>>> Date: 08/01/2013 09:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [swift] [keystone] Keystone v3 API domains
>>> in        Swift
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Henry,
>>>
>>>>  From a swift perspective, I think we are fine there, as we do not
>>> use the user name or project name anywhere.  At the moment, I'm
>>> thinking that we can do auth in a similar way as we did with v2.0 api.
>>> An "account" in swift is still tied to the project_id (which used to
>>> be tennant_id), which is in the storage url like:
>>> https://SWIFT/AUTH_ <https://swift/AUTH_>{PROJECT_ID}.  Keystone
>>> middleware in swift validates that the given token has permission for
>>> the given Project ID.
>>>
>>>>  From this point of view domains are an abstract concept in keystone
>>> only, and wouldn't mean anything directly in swift.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if any of my assumptions are incorrect.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Henry Nash <henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Chuck,
>>>>
>>>> So user_id and project_id are always globally unique - so we are
>>> safe there.  The problem is when you specify user name or project name
>>> in the cases when we have to handle enterprises being represented by a
>>> domain and they insist that their name attributes (e.g. user names,
>>> project names etc.) be private to that domain (e.g. "what do you mean
>>> I can't call my project "Test" because some other customer in another
>>> domain got there first!?!").  See the following blueprint which
>>> introduces this ability as optional for domains:
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/18805/
>>>>
>>>> For such domains, we cannot assume that user_name or project_name
>>> (or tenant_name as it used to be called) are globally unique.
>>> "Domain_name (or id) plus user_name" as well as  "Domain_name (or id)
>>> plus project_name" will be unique however.
>>>>
>>>> Henry
>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Chuck Thier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I was hoping for more clarity, as it would help to figure
>>> out  >> how to best map the concepts in swift.  A couple of quick
>>> questions  >> come to mind.  When a request is validated, is the
>>> domain required, or  >> is a user_id and project_id sufficient?  Is
>>> the concept of a domain  >> useful in the context of swift?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM, heckj <heckj at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The best is probably
>>> https://github.com/openstack/identity-api/blob/master/openstack-identi
>>> ty-api/src/markdown/identity-api-v3.md,
>>> but it's a bit light on use-cases around the concepts I'm afraid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Chuck Thier <cthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is there documentation anywhere that defines all of these, and
>>> the use  >>>> cases?  That would help us figure out how to map these
>>> concepts to  >>>> swift.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Dolph Mathews
>>> <dolph.mathews at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think it would be practical to expose the authenticated
>>> user's DOMAIN_ID  >>>>> and DOMAIN_NAME into the request environment
>>> for the underlying service /  >>>>> middleware to consume, as we do
>>> today with TENANT_ID / TENANT_NAME (soon to  >>>>> be deprecated in
>>> favor of PROJECT_ID / PROJECT_NAME).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Dolph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Alexandra Shulman-Peleg  >>>>>
>>> <SHULMANA at il.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As most of you know, Keystone v3 API will introduce the
>>> notions of  >>>>>> "domains" and "projects" which will replace the
>>> existing notion of tenants.
>>>>>>>>> It is important to allow using the same concepts in Swift.
>>> Since different  >>>>>> domains may represent different companies, it
>>> is important to allow  >>>>>> reflecting the Keystone "domain name" in
>>> the Swift "account name", providing  >>>>>> an option to isolate the
>>> requests of different domains. Are there existing  >>>>>> plans of
>>> adjusting Swift to Keystone v3 API? If not, I would like to start
>>>>>>>>> discussing the potential solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you all,
>>>>>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Alexandra Shulman-Peleg, PhD
>>>>>>>>> Storage Research, Cloud Platforms Dept.
>>>>>>>>> IBM Haifa Research Lab
>>>>>>>>> Tel: +972-3-7689530 | Fax: +972-3-7689545  >>>>>>  >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>