Open Stack

Also to add to pros for 2:

* Keeping the TLS stuff contained to its own objects means we can have
separate development resources on each and not worry as much about
overlapping domains. (TLS-related knowledge and knowledge of dealing with
TCP / UDP listeners are separate knowledge domains. Or at least, the former
is a more specialized subset of the latter.)

Note that what we're proposing means there's essentially a 1:0-1
relationship between Listener and this new yet-to-be-named object. (0 in
case the Listener is not terminating TLS.)

Stephen

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Brandon Logan <brandon.logan at rackspace.com>
wrote:

> Whoops, [Neutron][LBaaS] got taken out of the subject line here.
> Putting it back in.
>
> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 21:10 +0000, Brandon Logan wrote:
> > Okay so we've talked a bit about this in IRC and now I'm sending this
> > out as an update.  Here are the options with pros and cons that have
> > come from that discussion.
> >
> > 1) default_certificate_id is an attribute of the Listener object.
> >
> > Pros:
> > -No extra entity needed
> >
> > Cons:
> > -May bloat Listener object when more attributes are needed for only TLS
> > termination.  Sounds like TLS version and cipher selection will be
> > needed attributes in the future.
> >
> >
> > 2) A separate TLS Entity is created that is referenced by the Listener
> > object.  This entity at first may only contain a certificate_id that
> > references barbican.  Name and description can be allowed as well.
> >
> > Pros:
> > -TLS domain specific attributes contained in its own entity
> > -Future attributes would just be added to this entity and not bloat the
> > Listener object.
> >
> > Cons:
> > -It's another entity
> >
> > In IRC we (sbalukoff, myself) seemed to agree option 2 is right way to
> > go.  Anyone agree or disagree?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 12:15 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> > > The separate entity makes sense for certificates participating in an
> > > SNI configuration, but probably not so much for the 'default'
> > > certificate used when TLS is being terminated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vijay: You're also right that other TLS-related attributes will
> > > probably get added to the Listener object. This probably makes sense
> > > if they apply to the Listener object as a whole. (This includes things
> > > like TLS version and cipher selection.)
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see much of a point in creating a separate object to contain
> > > these fields, since it would have a 1:1 relationship with the
> > > Listener. It's true that for non-TLS-terminated Listeners, these
> > > fields wouldn't be used, but isn't that already the case in many other
> > > objects (not just in the Neutron LBaaS sub project)?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Brandon Logan
> > > <brandon.logan at rackspace.com> wrote:
> > >         Vijay,
> > >         I think the separate entity is still going to happen.  I don't
> > >         think it
> > >         has remvoed.  Or that is may just be my assumption.
> > >
> > >         Thanks,
> > >         Brandon
> > >
> > >         On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 15:59 +0000, Vijay Venkatachalam wrote:
> > >         > Hi:
> > >         >
> > >         >
> > >         > In the “LBaaS TLS termination capability specification”
> > >         proposal
> > >         >
> > >         > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640/
> > >         >
> > >         > TLS settings like default certificate container id and SNI
> > >         cert list are part of the listener properties.
> > >         >
> > >         > I think it is better to have this as a separate entity so
> > >         that the listener properties are clean and is not “corrupted”
> > >         with TLS settings.
> > >         >
> > >         > I liked the original SSL proposal better where TLS settings
> > >         was a separate entity.
> > >         >
> > >         > It is just 2 properties now but in future the TLS settings
> > >         would grow and if we are going to introduce a TLS
> > >         profile/params/settings entity later, it is better to do it
> > >         now (albeit with min properties).
> > >         >
> > >         > Thanks,
> > >         > Vijay V.
> > >
> > >         > _______________________________________________
> > >         > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Balukoff
> > > Blue Box Group, LLC
> > > (800)613-4305 x807
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>



-- 
Stephen Balukoff
Blue Box Group, LLC
(800)613-4305 x807
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140623/22f5dfaf/attachment-0001.html>