Open Stack

++ One of the feature that I am looking forward to see in Kilo, this
feature will solve one of the pain points from operators in maintaining the
token db backend.

-Lin

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Steve Martinelli <stevemar at ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> It would be great to see this land in Kilo, I'll definitely be willing to
> review the code.
>
> Steve
>
> Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote on 02/13/2015 04:19:15
> PM:
>
> > From: Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com>
> > To: Lance Bragstad <lbragstad at gmail.com>, "OpenStack Development
> > Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> > Date: 02/13/2015 04:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] SPFE: Authenticated
> > Encryption (AE) Tokens
> >
> > On February 13, 2015 at 11:51:10 AM, Lance Bragstad (lbragstad at gmail.com
> > ) wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm proposing the Authenticated Encryption (AE) Token specification
> > [1] as an SPFE. AE tokens increases scalability of Keystone by
> > removing token persistence. This provider has been discussed prior
> > to, and at the Paris summit [2]. There is an implementation that is
> > currently up for review [3], that was built off a POC. Based on the
> > POC, there has been some performance analysis done with respect to
> > the token formats available in Keystone (UUID, PKI, PKIZ, AE) [4].
> >
> > The Keystone team spent some time discussing limitations of the
> > current POC implementation at the mid-cycle. One case that still
> > needs to be addressed (and is currently being worked), is federated
> > tokens. When requesting unscoped federated tokens, the token
> > contains unbound groups which would need to be carried in the token.
> > This case can be handled by AE tokens but it would be possible for
> > an unscoped federated AE token to exceed an acceptable AE token
> > length (i.e. < 255 characters). Long story short, a federation
> > migration could be used to ensure federated AE tokens never exceed a
> > certain length.
> >
> > Feel free to leave your comments on the AE Token spec.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Lance
> >
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130050/
> > [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-keystone-authorization
> > [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145317/
> > [4] http://dolphm.com/benchmarking-openstack-keystone-token-formats/
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > I am for granting this exception as long as it’s clear that the
> > following is clear/true:
> > * All current use-cases for tokens (including federation) will be
> > supported by the new token provider.
> > * The federation tokens being possibly over 255 characters can be
> > addressed in the future if they are not addressed here (a
> > “federation migration” does not clearly state what is meant.
> > I am also ok with the AE token work being re-ordered ahead of the
> > provider cleanup to ensure it lands. Fixing the AE Token provider
> > along with PKI and UUID providers should be minimal extra work in the
> cleanup.
> > This addresses a very, very big issue within Keystone as scaling
> > scaling up happens. There has been demand for solving token
> > persistence for ~3 cycles. The POC code makes this exception
> > possible to land within Kilo, whereas without the POC this would
> > almost assuredly need to be held until the L-Cycle.
> >
> > TL;DR, I am for the exception if the AE Tokens support 100% of the
> > current use-cases of tokens (UUID or PKI) today.
> >
> > —Morgan
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150213/f7109feb/attachment.html>