Open Stack

The idea of the reseller prefix is to allow multiple auth system on the same cluster. This may be implemented as multiple copies of the same code (but with different configs). I'd hesitate to implement it as one auth system handling all of the reseller prefixes. This would break migrations and not be supportable is some existing swift clusters.

That being said, I'd answer differently from a single-deployment or company product perspective. In that case (eg one cluster will a well known use-case), It would be completely ok to change the "normal" way auth in Swift works. But I don't think that's appropriate for the general use case and from the open-source project perspective. In other words, play nice with others, and you don't even know who the others may be in a particular deployment.

--John


On Jan 9, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Alexandra Shulman-Peleg <SHULMANA at il.ibm.com> wrote:

> What about using the same convention of  http://{SWIFT_IP}/v1/AUTH_{TENANT_ID}, but allowing to replace the reseller prefix of "AUTH_" with the domain identifier when required? On the one hand, this will be optional and will allow backwards compatibility. On the other hand, for some architectures, this will allow reflecting the domain in the URL, supporting private namespaces. As far as I understand, the reseller prefix (AUTH_) is something optional and is not used in most architectures (i.e. equals to the default AUTH_). So may be it is ok to allow some architectures to align it with the domain id. 
> 
> Best regards, 
> Alex.   
> 
> 
> 
> From:        Chuck Thier <cthier at gmail.com> 
> To:        OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>, 
> Date:        09/01/2013 10:15 PM 
> Subject:        Re: [openstack-dev] [swift] [keystone] Keystone v3 API domains in        Swift 
> 
> 
> 
> Things are always easy, until you start thinking about backwards
> compatibility.  The storage urls for swift with keystone are currently
> keyed off of the tenant_id (soon to be project_id), so you end up with
> an endpoint url that looks something like
> http://{SWIFT_IP}/v1/AUTH_{TENANT_ID}  if you change that by adding
> the domain, then you break any current users in your system, and you
> can't use v2 and v3 auth contracts simultaneously.
> 
> --
> Chuck
> 
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I would have thought that the solution is conceptually rather
> > straightforward. If domains can have their own project names and usernames,
> > then you prefix the names with the domain ID or domain name to make them
> > globally unique again.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/01/2013 19:14, Yee, Guang wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. Swift ACLs <tenant_id>:<user_name>, <tenant_id>:<user_name>, and
> >> *:<user_name> will be impacted if project (formely tenant) name and user
> >> name are no longer globally unique. We'll need to figure out a migration
> >> path before relaxing that constraint.
> >>
> >>
> >> Guang
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chuck Thier [mailto:cthier at gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 10:48 AM
> >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [swift] [keystone] Keystone v3 API domains in
> >> Swift
> >>
> >> Se responses inline:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Henry Nash <henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So there are a couple of issues intertwined in this thread:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Uniqueness of identifiers in Swift given the keystone Identity v3 api.
> >>> This is the issue of whether Swift uses tenant names (now called project
> >>> names) at all to uniquely identify any objects - if it did, then it would
> >>> need to also consider storing a domain name or id.  From the discussion,
> >>
> >> it
> >>>
> >>> sounds like tenant/project ID is used instead, which (from a uniqueness
> >>> point of view) is fine.  A separate issue exists needs to be discussed
> >>> around swift ACLs and whether username potentially becoming unique only
> >>> within a domain will have an impact.
> >>>
> >>
> >> For AuthN, you are correct, in that it only relies on tenant/project
> >> ID.  So, nothing has to be changed from that perspective.  AuthZ is a
> >> little more tricky. For ACLs with keystone, they are set as
> >> TENANT:USER in any of the following patterns:
> >>
> >> *:user_name - that user from any tenant has access
> >> tenant_id:user_name - that user from that tenant id has access
> >> tenant_name:user_name - that user from that tenant name has access
> >>
> >> If project_name will not be unique in v3, then the
> >> tenant_name:user_name format may have to be deprecated.
> >>
> >> I would be interested to hear from providers that are using keystone
> >> with swift and hear which of the above use cases they are using.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 2) Given that keystone identity v3 domains are likely to be usually used
> >>
> >> to
> >>>
> >>> represent an enterprise (or "account holder" in common cloud terminology)
> >>> and contain the collection of projects owned by that enterprise, is it
> >>> important for Swift to have that domain knowledge?  Will there be
> >>
> >> operations
> >>>
> >>> either within swift (or more likely layered on top of swift) that need
> >>
> >> that
> >>>
> >>> information?  E.g. How would someone layer a billing engine on top of
> >>
> >> swift
> >>>
> >>> that could collate all the swift containers that were part of one domain?
> >>> Obviously that engine could call keystone with each project_id in turn
> >>> and
> >>> find the domain_id.....but  that sounds pretty inefficient.
> >>>
> >>
> >> As is, containers can already be collated for a given tenant/project
> >> id.  The containers for a domain is then an aggregate of the project
> >> ids  associated to that domain.
> >>
> >> I think the default should be that domains are not mapped in swift.  I
> >> believe that this will also be required to facilitate backwards
> >> compatibility, which brings up another interesting question -- Is
> >> there an expectation that people will be able to run keystone auth
> >> v2.0 and v3.0 side by side?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4082 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130109/87d6e064/attachment.bin>