[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Barbican Neutron LBaaS Integration Ideas
Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com
Tue Jun 10 04:48:43 UTC 2014
My vote is for option #2 (without the registration). It is simpler to start with this approach. How is delete handled though?
Ex. What is the expectation when user attempts to delete a certificate/container which is referred by an entity like LBaaS listener?
1. Will there be validation in Barbican to prevent this? *OR*
2. LBaaS listener will have a dangling reference/pointer to certificate?
From: Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbalukoff at bluebox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:43 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Barbican Neutron LBaaS Integration Ideas
Weighing in here:
I'm all for option #2 as well.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com<mailto:clint at fewbar.com>> wrote:
Excerpts from Douglas Mendizabal's message of 2014-06-09 16:08:02 -0700:
> Hi all,
> I’m strongly in favor of having immutable TLS-typed containers, and very
> much opposed to storing every revision of changes done to a container. I
> think that storing versioned containers would add too much complexity to
> Barbican, where immutable containers would work well.
Agree completely. Create a new one for new values. Keep the old ones
while they're still active.
> I’m still not sold on the idea of registering services with Barbican, even
> though (or maybe especially because) Barbican would not be using this data
> for anything. I understand the problem that we’re trying to solve by
> associating different resources across projects, but I don’t feel like
> Barbican is the right place to do this.
Agreed also, this is simply not Barbican or Neutron's role. Be a REST
API for secrets and networking, not all dancing all singing nannies that
prevent any possibly dangerous behavior with said API's.
> It seems we’re leaning towards option #2, but I would argue that
> orchestration of services is outside the scope of Barbican’s role as a
> secret-store. I think this is a problem that may need to be solved at a
> higher level. Maybe an openstack-wide registry of dependend entities
> across services?
An optional openstack-wide registry of depended entities is called
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Blue Box Group, LLC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev