Open Stack

On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 13:10 -0800, Mark Washenberger wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Henry Nash
> <henryn at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>         Hi Mark,
>         
>         
>         So we would not modify any existing IDs, so no migration
>         required.
> 
> 
> Okay, I just want to be painfully clear--we're not proposing changing
> any of the current restrictions on the user-id field. We will not:
>   - require it to be a uuid
>   - encode it as binary instead of char
>   - shrink its size below the current 64 characters

The first would be required for the real solution. The second and third
are performance improvements.

> Any of those could require a migration for existing IDs depending on
> how your identity driver functions.

Personally, I think to fix this issue permanently and properly,
migrations for database schemas of Glance and Nova would indeed need to
accompany a proposed patch that restricts the Keystone external user ID
to only a UUID value.

I entirely disagree with allowing non-UUID values for the user ID value
that is exposed outside of Keystone. All other solutions (including the
proposals to continue using the user_id fields with non-UUID values) are
just hacks IMO.

Best,
-jay