[openstack-dev] [keystone][reseller] New way to get a project scoped token by name
Dolph Mathews
dolph.mathews at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 14:57:32 UTC 2015
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Jamie Lennox <jamielennox at redhat.com>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Chadwick" <d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk>
> > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2015 6:01:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][reseller] New way to get a
> project scoped token by name
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/06/2015 00:24, Adam Young wrote:
> > > On 06/05/2015 01:15 PM, Henry Nash wrote:
> > >> I am sure I have missed something along the way, but can someone
> > >> explain to me why we need this at all. Project names are unique
> > >> within a domain, with the exception of the project that is acting as
> > >> its domain (i.e. they can only every be two names clashing in a
> > >> hierarchy at the domain level and below). So why isn’t specifying
> > >> “is_domain=True/False” sufficient in an auth scope along with the
> > >> project name?
> > >
> > > The limitation of " Project names are unique within a domain" is
> > > artificial and somethi8ng we should not be enforcing. Names should
> only
> > > be unique within parent project.
> >
> > +++1
>
> I said the exact same thing as Henry in the other thread that seems to be
> on the same topic. You're correct the limitation of "Project names are
> unique within a domain" is completely artificial, but it's a constraint
> that allows us to maintain the auth systems we currently have and will not
> harm the reseller model (because they would be creating new domains).
>
> It's also a constraint that we can relax later when multitenancy is a bit
> more established and someone has a real issue with the limitation - it's
> not something we can ever claw back again if we allow some looking up
> projects by name with delimiters.
>
> I think for the time being it's an artificial constraint we should
> maintain.
>
+1
>
>
>
> > >
> > > This whole thing started by trying to distinguish a domain from a
> > > project within that domain that both have the same name. We can special
> > > case that, but it is not a great solution.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Henry
> > >>
> > >>> On 5 Jun 2015, at 18:02, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com
> > >>> <mailto:ayoung at redhat.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On 06/03/2015 05:05 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> > >>>> Hi David,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There needs to be some form of global hierarchy delimiter - well
> > >>>> more to the point there should be a common one across OpenStack
> > >>>> installations to ensure we are providing a good and consistent (and
> > >>>> more to the point inter-operable) experience to our users. I'm
> > >>>> worried a custom defined delimiter (even at the domain level) is
> > >>>> going to make it difficult to consume this data outside of the
> > >>>> context of OpenStack (there are applications that are written to use
> > >>>> the APIs directly).
> > >>> We have one already. We are working JSON, and so instead of project
> > >>> name being a string, it can be an array.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nothing else is backwards compatible. Nothing else will ensure we
> > >>> don;t break exisiting deployments.
> > >>>
> > >>> Moving forward, we should support DNS notation, but it has to be an
> > >>> opt in
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The alternative is to explicitly list the delimiter in the project (
> > >>>> e.g. {"hierarchy": {"delim": ".", "domain.project.project2"}} ). The
> > >>>> additional need to look up the delimiter / set the delimiter when
> > >>>> creating a domain is likely to make for a worse user experience than
> > >>>> selecting one that is not different across installations.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --Morgan
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, David Chadwick
> > >>>> <d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk <mailto:d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 03/06/2015 14:54, Henrique Truta wrote:
> > >>>> > Hi David,
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > You mean creating some kind of "delimiter" attribute in the
> domain
> > >>>> > entity? That seems like a good idea, although it does not
> > >>>> solve the
> > >>>> > problem Morgan's mentioned that is the global hierarchy
> delimiter.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There would be no global hierarchy delimiter. Each domain would
> > >>>> define
> > >>>> its own and this would be carried in the JSON as a separate
> > >>>> parameter so
> > >>>> that the recipient can tell how to parse hierarchical names
> > >>>>
> > >>>> David
> > >>>>
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Henrique
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Em qua, 3 de jun de 2015 às 04:21, David Chadwick
> > >>>> > <d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk <mailto:d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk>
> > >>>> <mailto:d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk
> > >>>> <mailto:d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk>>> escreveu:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > On 02/06/2015 23:34, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> > >>>> > > Hi Henrique,
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > I don't think we need to specifically call out that we
> > >>>> want a
> > >>>> > domain, we
> > >>>> > > should always reference the namespace as we do today.
> > >>>> Basically, if we
> > >>>> > > ask for a project name we need to also provide it's
> > >>>> namespace (your
> > >>>> > > option #1). This clearly lines up with how we handle
> > >>>> projects in
> > >>>> > domains
> > >>>> > > today.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > I would, however, focus on how to represent the
> > >>>> namespace in a single
> > >>>> > > (usable) string. We've been delaying the work on this
> > >>>> for a while
> > >>>> > since
> > >>>> > > we have historically not provided a clear way to
> delimit the
> > >>>> > hierarchy.
> > >>>> > > If we solve the issue with "what is the delimiter"
> > >>>> between domain,
> > >>>> > > project, and subdomain/subproject, we end up solving the
> > >>>> usability
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > why not allow the top level domain/project to define the
> > >>>> delimiter for
> > >>>> > its tree, and to carry the delimiter in the JSON as a new
> > >>>> parameter.
> > >>>> > That provides full flexibility for all languages and
> locales
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > David
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > > issues with proposal #1, and not breaking the current
> > >>>> behavior you'd
> > >>>> > > expect with implementing option #2 (which at face value
> > >>>> feels to
> > >>>> > be API
> > >>>> > > incompatible/break of current behavior).
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > Cheers,
> > >>>> > > --Morgan
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Henrique Truta
> > >>>> > > <henriquecostatruta at gmail.com
> > >>>> <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com>
> > >>>> > <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com
> > >>>> <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com>>
> > >>>> > <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com
> > >>>> <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com>
> > >>>> > <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com
> > >>>> <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > Hi folks,
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > In Reseller[1], we’ll have the domains concept
> > >>>> merged into
> > >>>> > projects,
> > >>>> > > that means that we will have projects that will
> > >>>> behave as domains.
> > >>>> > > Therefore, it will be possible to have two projects
> > >>>> with the same
> > >>>> > > name in a hierarchy, one being a domain and another
> > >>>> being a
> > >>>> > regular
> > >>>> > > project. For instance, the following hierarchy will
> > >>>> be valid:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > A - is_domain project, with domain A
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > |
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > B - project
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > |
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > A - project with domain A
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > That hierarchy faces a problem when a user requests
> > >>>> a project
> > >>>> > scoped
> > >>>> > > token by name, once she’ll pass “domain = ‘A’” and
> > >>>> > project.name <http://project.name/> <http://project.name
> > >>>> <http://project.name/>>
> > >>>> > > <http://project.name <http://project.name/>> = “A”.
> > >>>> Currently, we have no way to
> > >>>> > > distinguish which project we are referring to. We
> > >>>> have two
> > >>>> > proposals
> > >>>> > > for this.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > 1.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > Specify the whole hierarchy in the token request
> > >>>> body, which
> > >>>> > > means that when requesting a token for the child
> > >>>> project for
> > >>>> > > that hierarchy, we’ll have in the scope field
> > >>>> something like:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > "project": {
> > >>>> > > "domain": {
> > >>>> > > "name": "A"
> > >>>> > > },
> > >>>> > > "name": [“A”', “B”, “A”]
> > >>>> > > }
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > If the project name is unique inside the domain
> > >>>> (project “B”, for
> > >>>> > > example), the hierarchy is optional.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > 2.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > When a conflict happen, always provide a token
> > >>>> to the child
> > >>>> > > project. That means that, in case we have a name
> > >>>> clashing as
> > >>>> > > described, it will only be possible to get a
> > >>>> project scoped
> > >>>> > > token to the is_domain project through its id.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > The former will give us more clarity and won’t
> > >>>> create any more
> > >>>> > > restrictions than we already have. As a con, we
> > >>>> currently are not
> > >>>> > > able to get the names of projects in the hierarchy
> > >>>> above a given
> > >>>> > > project. Although the latter seems to hurt fewer
> > >>>> people, it
> > >>>> > has the
> > >>>> > > disadvantage of creating another set of constraints
> > >>>> that might
> > >>>> > > difficult the UX in the future.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > What do you think about that? We want to hear your
> > >>>> oppinion, so we
> > >>>> > > can discuss it at today’s Keystone Meeting.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > [1]
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> https://github.com/openstack/keystone-specs/blob/master/specs/liberty/reseller.rst
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > >>>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> > >>>> questions)
> > >>>> > > Unsubscribe:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>>
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@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://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@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://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > >>>> <
> http://OpenStack-dev-request@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://OpenStack-dev-request@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://OpenStack-dev-request@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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > >>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org
> > >>> <mailto: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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150609/f476dc88/attachment.html>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list