Open Stack

They shouldn't be combined because they can each be used without the
other.  That is, they each stand on their own.

Congress can be used for monitoring or delegating policy without attempting
to correct violations (i.e. without needing workflows).

Mistral can be used to make complex changes without writing a policy.

Tim





On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:57 AM Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/09/2015 10:57 AM, Tim Hinrichs wrote:
>
> Congress happens to have the capability to run a script/API call under
> arbitrary conditions on the state of other OpenStack projects, which
> sounded like what you wanted.  Or did I misread your original question?
>
> Congress and Mistral are definitely not competing.    Congress lets
> people declare which states of the other OpenStack projects are permitted
> using a general purpose policy language, but it does not try to make
> complex changes (often requiring a workflow) to eliminate prohibited
> states.  Mistral lets people create a workflow that makes complex changes
> to other OpenStack projects, but it doesn't have a general purpose policy
> language that describes which states are permitted.  Congress and Mistral
> are complementary, and each can stand on its own.
>
>
> And why should not these two things be in a single project?
>
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:46 AM Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2015 06:28 PM, Tim Hinrichs wrote:
>>
>> Congress allows users to write a policy that executes an action under
>> certain conditions.
>>
>> The conditions can be based on any data Congress has access to, which
>> includes nova servers, neutron networks, cinder storage, keystone users,
>> etc.  We also have some Ceilometer statistics; I'm not sure about whether
>> it's easy to get the Keystone notifications that you're talking about
>> today, but notifications are on our roadmap.  If the user's login is
>> reflected in the Keystone API, we may already be getting that event.
>>
>> The action could in theory be a mistral/heat API or an arbitrary script.
>> Right now we're set up to invoke any method on any of the python-clients
>> we've integrated with.  We've got an integration with heat but not
>> mistral.  New integrations are typically easy.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like Mistral and Congress are competing here, then.  Maybe we
>> should merge those efforts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy to talk more.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:17 AM Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Excerpts from Dolph Mathews's message of 2015-11-05 16:31:28 -0600:
>>> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-05 10:09:49 -0800:
>>> > > > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-11-05 09:51:41 -0800:
>>> > > > > Excerpts from Adam Young's message of 2015-11-05 12:34:12 -0500:
>>> > > > > > Can people help me work through the right set of tools for
>>> this use
>>> > > case
>>> > > > > > (has come up from several Operators) and map out a plan to
>>> implement
>>> > > it:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Large cloud with many users coming from multiple Federation
>>> sources
>>> > > has
>>> > > > > > a policy of providing a minimal setup for each user upon first
>>> visit
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > the cloud:  Create a project for the user with a minimal
>>> quota, and
>>> > > > > > provide them a role assignment.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Here are the gaps, as I see it:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > 1.  Keystone provides a notification that a user has logged
>>> in, but
>>> > > > > > there is nothing capable of executing on this notification at
>>> the
>>> > > > > > moment.  Only Ceilometer listens to Keystone notifications.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > 2.  Keystone does not have a workflow engine, and should not be
>>> > > > > > auto-creating projects.  This is something that should be
>>> performed
>>> > > via
>>> > > > > > a Heat template, and Keystone does not know about Heat, nor
>>> should
>>> > > it.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > 3.  The Mapping code is pretty static; it assumes a user entry
>>> or a
>>> > > > > > group entry in identity when creating a role assignment, and
>>> neither
>>> > > > > > will exist.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > We can assume a special domain for Federated users to have
>>> per-user
>>> > > > > > projects.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > So; lets assume a Heat Template that does the following:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > 1. Creates a user in the per-user-projects domain
>>> > > > > > 2. Assigns a role to the Federated user in that project
>>> > > > > > 3. Sets the minimal quota for the user
>>> > > > > > 4. Somehow notifies the user that the project has been set up.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > This last probably assumes an email address from the Federated
>>> > > > > > assertion.  Otherwise, the user hits Horizon, gets a "not
>>> > > authenticated
>>> > > > > > for any projects" error, and is stumped.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > How is quota assignment done in the other projects now?  What
>>> happens
>>> > > > > > when a project is created in Keystone?  Does that information
>>> gets
>>> > > > > > transferred to the other services, and, if so, how?  Do most
>>> people
>>> > > use
>>> > > > > > a custom provisioning tool for this workflow?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I know at Dreamhost we built some custom integration that was
>>> triggered
>>> > > > > when someone turned on the Dreamcompute service in their account
>>> in our
>>> > > > > existing user management system. That integration created the
>>> account
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > keystone, set up a default network in neutron, etc. I've long
>>> thought
>>> > > we
>>> > > > > needed a "new tenant creation" service of some sort, that sits
>>> outside
>>> > > > > of our existing services and pokes them to do something when a
>>> new
>>> > > > > tenant is established. Using heat as the implementation makes
>>> sense,
>>> > > for
>>> > > > > things that heat can control, but we don't want keystone to
>>> depend on
>>> > > > > heat and we don't want to bake such a specialized feature into
>>> heat
>>> > > > > itself.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I agree, an automation piece that is built-in and easy to add to
>>> > > > OpenStack would be great.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I do not agree that it should be Heat. Heat is for managing stacks
>>> that
>>> > > > live on and change over time and thus need the complexity of the
>>> graph
>>> > > > model Heat presents.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'd actually say that Mistral or Ansible are better choices for
>>> this. A
>>> > > > service which listens to the notification bus and triggered a
>>> workflow
>>> > > > defined somewhere in either Ansible playbooks or Mistral's workflow
>>> > > > language would simply run through the "skel" workflow for each
>>> user.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The actual workflow would probably almost always be somewhat site
>>> > > > specific, but it would make sense for Keystone to include a few
>>> basic
>>> > > ones
>>> > > > as "contrib" elements. For instance, the "notify the user" piece
>>> would
>>> > > > likely be simplest if you just let the workflow tool send an
>>> email. But
>>> > > > if your cloud has Zaqar, you may want to use that as well or
>>> instead.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Adding Mistral here to see if they have some thoughts on how this
>>> > > > might work.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > BTW, if this does form into a new project, I suggest naming it
>>> > > > Skeleton[1]
>>> > >
>>> > > Following the pattern of Kite's naming, I think a Dirigible is a
>>> > > better way to get users into the cloud. :-)
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > lol +1
>>> >
>>> > Is this use case specifically for keystone-to-keystone, or for
>>> federation
>>> > in general?
>>>
>>> The use case I had in mind was actually signing up a new user for
>>> a cloud (at Dreamhost that meant enabling a paid service in their
>>> account in the existing management tool outside of OpenStack). I'm not
>>> sure how it relates to federation, but it seems like that might just be
>>> another trigger for something similar, though not exactly the same? A
>>> federated user would also presumably need things like a default network,
>>> for example, though it may not need anything added to the keystone
>>> database.
>>>
>>> > As an outcome of the Vancouver summit, we had a use case for mirroring
>>> a
>>> > federated user's project ID from the identity provider cloud to the
>>> service
>>> > provider cloud. The goal would be that a user can burst into a second
>>> cloud
>>> > and immediately receive a token scoped to the same project ID that
>>> they're
>>> > already familiar with (which implies a role assignment of some sort;
>>> for
>>> > example, member). That would have to be done in real time though, not
>>> by a
>>> > secondary service.
>>> >
>>> > And with shadow users, we're looking at creating an identity
>>> (basically,
>>> > nothing but a user_id) in the second cloud anyway. And as another
>>> > consequence of shadow users, they wouldn't be getting a "federated
>>> token"
>>> > of any sort, but rather a simpler, local token, referencing a local
>>> > identity (the user_id that was just created automatically).
>>> >
>>> > Adam, does any of this align with your use case?
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Doug
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > [1] https://goo.gl/photos/EML6EPKeqRXioWfd8 (that was my front
>>> yard..)
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> > > 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:unsubscribehttp://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:unsubscribehttp://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/20151109/6dcf5fa4/attachment.html>