Open Stack

What's the point of putting off a potential name change to the actual code
(where you're going to see more friction because names in the code do not
match names in the spec, and this becomes a point where confusion can
happen). I understand the idea that code may not exactly match the spec,
but when it's obvious that it should, why use the wrong name in the spec?

Isn't it more confusing when the API does not match database object names
when it's clear the API is specifically meant to manipulate those database
objects?

Is that naming convention actually documented anywhere? And why are you
calling it a 'listenersniassociations'? There is no "SNI" object in the
database. (IMO, this is a terrible name that needs to be re-read three
times just to pick out where the word breaks should be! As written it looks
like "Listeners NI Associations" what the heck is an 'NI'?)

They say that there are two hard problems in Computer Science:
* Cache invalidation
* Naming things
* Off-by-one errors

And far be it from me to pick nits about a name (OK, I guess it's isn't
that far fetched for me to pick nits. :P ), but it's hard for me to imagine
a worse name than 'listenersniassocaitions' being considered. :P

Stephen



On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk <EvgenyF at radware.com> wrote:

>  Hi folks
>
>
>
> Regarding names, there are two types of them: new API attributes for REST
> call,  and new column name and table name for the database.
>
> When creating listener, 2 new attributes will be added to the REST call
> API:
>
> 1.       default_tls_container_id - Barbican TLS container uuid
>
> 2.       sni_container_ids (I removed the “_list” part to make it
> shorter) – ordered list of Barbican TLS container uuids
>
> For the database, these will be translated to:
>
> 1.       default_tls_container_id- new column for *listeners* table
>
> 2.       listenersniassociations (changed it from vipsniassociations
> which is a mistake) – new associations table, holding: id(generated),
> listener_id, TLS_container_id, and position(for ordering)
>
> This kind of a name comes to comply current neutron’s table name
> convention, like pollmonitorassociation or providerresourceassociation
>
>
>
> I think names may always be an issue for the actual code review, the
> document is just a functional specification
>
> Since new objects model code is not landed yet, naming conventions may be
> changed while implementing this spec.
>
> I will commit the document with all comments addressed and mentioned above
> names.
>
> Please review it and give your feedback, I think we are close to complete
> this one )
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Evg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:34 AM
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the details Evg!
>
>
>
> I understand there was no TLS settings API originally planned.
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbalukoff at bluebox.net
> <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:46 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
> Evgeny--
>
>
>
> Two minor nits:
>
>
>
> * Your spec lists the new SNI related settings 'sni_list' (and it contains
> more than just IDs, so calling it 'sni_container_ids_list' is
> misleading). Please be precise in the terms you use, and don't switch them
> mid discussion. :)
>
> * Also, I personally really hate long table names when they're
> unnecessary. "vipsniassociations" isn't mentioned in your spec anywhere,
> and frankly, is a lot worse than "sni_list." I personally prefer
> "SNIPolicies", but I'm also OK with a short name like "sni_list".
>
>
>
> Otherwise I agree with you on all points.
>
>
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk <EvgenyF at radware.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Vijay, there is no intension for a new TLS settings API.
>
> Creation of a listener with TLS offloading will be one-step.
>
>
>
> When tenant creates listener with TERMINATED-HTTPS protocol he must supply
> default_tls_container_id for offloading.
>
> Not supplying default TLS container id for offloading for TERMINATED-HTTPS
> listener will raise an error.
>
> SNI list may or may not be supplied by the tenant. Default value for SNI
> certificates list is an empty list.
>
>
>
> So listener resource will have another two attributes:
> default_tls_container_id and sni_container_ids_list. These are relevant for
> TERMINATED-HTTPS protocol listeners only. In other cases its default value
> are ‘None’ and empty list.
>
> In schema, Default_tls_container_id will be added to listener object as
> another column.
>
> Sni_container_ids_list wil be managed by new table “vipsniassociations”
> which has listener_id, container_id, and position (for ordering) columns
>
>
>
> Does it make sense?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Evg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:31 PM
>
>
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
>
>
> To clarify, the request is for a new TLS settings API with
> “default_tls_container_id” & “sni_list”.
>
>
>
> If there is a new API, then we would have an object model reflecting this
> as a separate entity.
>
>
>
> The tenant would do the following
>
>
>
> 1.       Create a listener with TERMINATED_HTTPS
>
> 2.       Set the TLS settings for the listener using
> /v2.0/listener/<listenerid>/tlssettings  (if at all we are having some
> default values this can be reflected here)
>
>
>
> The only good thing is the separation of the TLS settings out of the
> listener API.
>
>
>
> But, I can see 2 downsides
>
> 1.       The loadbalancer creation is a 2 step procedure
>
> 2.       We cannot enforce certificate attachment as part of the create
> of listener.
>
>
>
> If the new API itself has “-1”s then I am perfectly OK with the current
> object model with default_tls_container_id in listener table.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vijay V.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Evgeny Fedoruk [mailto:EvgenyF at Radware.com <EvgenyF at Radware.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:19 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
> Vipsniassociations table: Line 147 in last patch of the document
>
>
>
> *From:* Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com
> <Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:17 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>SNI list is managed by separate entity
>
> What is this entity?
>
>
>
> *From:* Evgeny Fedoruk [mailto:EvgenyF at Radware.com <EvgenyF at Radware.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:25 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
> +1 for option 1. SNI list is managed by separate entity, default TLS
> container is part of a listener object. It will have None value when
> listener does not offloads TLS.
>
> Managing another entity for 1:0-1 relationship just for future use seems
> not right to me. Breaking TLS settings apart from listener can be done when
> needed, if needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Evg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbalukoff at bluebox.net
> <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:26 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
> Ok, so we've got opinions on both sides of the argument here. I'm actually
> pretty ambivalent about it. Do others have strong opinions on this?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Doug Wiegley <dougw at a10networks.com>
> wrote:
>
> Put me down for being in favor of option 1.
>
>
>
> A single attribute in a 1:1 relationship?  Putting that in a new table
> sounds like premature optimization to me; design the database change for
> the future feature when you can see the spec for it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Stephen Balukoff <sbalukoff at bluebox.net>
> *Reply-To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Date: *Monday, June 23, 2014 at 5:25 PM
> *To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Should TLS settings for
> listener be set through separate API/model?
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20140625/4330e174/attachment.html>