Open Stack

Both proposals allow you to provide a path as the project name in auth (so you can still use domain name + project path name). The difference between the two is whether you formally represent the path in the name attribute of a project, i.e. when it is returned by GET /project.  The relax name constraints works like the linux dir tree. If I do an ‘ls’ I get the node names of the all entities in that directory, but I can still do 'cd /a/b/c' to jump right to where I want.

Henry
> On 3 Jun 2016, at 23:53, Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jun 3, 2016 12:42, "Lance Bragstad" <lbragstad at gmail.com <mailto:lbragstad at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Henry Nash <henrynash9 at mac.com <mailto:henrynash9 at mac.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 3 Jun 2016, at 16:38, Lance Bragstad <lbragstad at gmail.com <mailto:lbragstad at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Henry Nash <henrynash9 at mac.com <mailto:henrynash9 at mac.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 3 Jun 2016, at 01:22, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com <mailto:ayoung at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 06/02/2016 07:22 PM, Henry Nash wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you know, I have been working on specs that change the way we handle the uniqueness of project names in Newton. The goal of this is to better support project hierarchies, which as they stand today are restrictive in that all project names within a domain must be unique, irrespective of where in the hierarchy that projects sits (unlike, say, the unix directory structure where a node name only has to be unique within its parent). Such a restriction is particularly problematic when enterprise start modelling things like test, QA and production as branches of a project hierarchy, e.g.:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /mydivsion/projectA/dev
> >>>>>> /mydivsion/projectA/QA
> >>>>>> /mydivsion/projectA/prod
> >>>>>> /mydivsion/projectB/dev
> >>>>>> /mydivsion/projectB/QA
> >>>>>> /mydivsion/projectB/prod
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Obviously the idea of a project name (née tenant) being unique has been around since near the beginning of (OpenStack) time, so we must be cautions. There are two alternative specs proposed:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Relax project name constraints: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/310048/ <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/310048/> 
> >>>>>> 2) Hierarchical project naming: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/318605/ <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/318605/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> First, here’s what they have in common:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a) They both solve the above problem
> >>>>>> b) They both allow an authorization scope to use a path rather than just a simple name, hence allowing you to address a project anywhere in the hierarchy
> >>>>>> c) Neither have any impact if you are NOT using a hierarchy - i.e. if you just have a flat layer of projects in a domain, then they have no API or semantic impact (since both ensure that a project’s name must still be unique within a parent)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here’s how the differ:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Relax project name constraints (1), keeps the meaning of the ‘name’ attribute of a project to be its node-name in the hierarchy, but formally relaxes the uniqueness constraint to say that it only has to be unique within its parent. In other words, let’s really model this a bit like a unix directory tree.
> >>>
> >>> I think I lean towards relaxing the project name constraint. The reason is because we already expose `domain_id`, `parent_id`, and `name` of a project. By relaxing the constraint we can give the user everything the need to know about a project without really changing any of these. When using 3.7, you know what domain your project is in, you know the identifier of the parent project, and you know that your project name is unique within the parent.  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Hierarchical project naming (2), formally changes the meaning of the ‘name’ attribute to include the path to the node as well as the node name, and hence ensures that the (new) value of the name attribute remains unique.
> >>>
> >>> Do we intend to *store* the full path as the name, or just build it out on demand? If we do store the full path, we will have to think about our current data model since the depth of the organization or domain would be limited by the max possible name length. Will performance be something to think about building the full path on every request?   
> >>
> >> I now mention this issue in the spec for hierarchical project naming (the relax naming approach does not suffer this issue). As you say, we’ll have to change the DB (today it is only 64 chars) if we do store the full path . This is slightly problematic since the maximum depth of hierarchy is controlled by a config option, and hence could be changed. We will absolutely have be able to build the path on-the-fly in order to support legacy drivers (who won’t be able to store more than 64 chars). We may need to do some performance tests to ascertain if we can get away with building the path on-the-fly in all cases and avoid changing the table.  One additional point is that, of course, the API will return this path whenever it returns a project - so clients will need to be aware of this increase in size. 
> >
> >
> > These are all good points that continue to push me towards relaxing the project naming constraint :) 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While whichever approach we chose would only be included in a new microversion (3.7) of the Identity API, although some relevant APIs can remain unaffected for a client talking 3.6 to a Newton server, not all can be. As pointed out be jamielennox, this is a data modelling problem - if a Newton server has created multiple projects called “dev” in the hierarchy, a 3.6 client trying to scope a token simply to “dev” cannot be answered correctly (and it is proposed we would have to return an HTTP 409 Conflict error if multiple nodes with the same name were detected). This is true for both approaches.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Other comments on the approaches:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Having a full path as the name seems duplicative with the current project entity - since we already return the parent_id (hence parent_id + name is, today, sufficient to place a project in the hierarchy).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The one thing I like is the ability to specify just the full path for the OS_PROJECT_NAME env var, but we could make that a separate variable.  Just as DOMAIN_ID + PROJECT_NAME is unique today, OS_PROJECT_PATH should be able to fully specify a project unambiguously.  I'm not sure which would have a larger impact on users.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Agreed - and this could be done for both approaches (since this is all part of the “auth data flow").
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - In the past, we have been concerned about the issue of what we do if there is a project further up the tree that we do not have any roles on. In such cases, APIs like list project parents will not display anything other than the project ID for such projects. In the case of making the name the full path, we would be effectively exposing the name of all projects above us, irrespective of whether we had roles on them. Maybe this is OK, maybe it isn’t.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it is OK.  If this info needs to be hidden from a user, the project should probably be in a different domain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - While making the name the path keeps it unique, this is fine if clients blindly use this attribute to plug back into another API to call. However if, for example, you are Horizon and are displaying them in a UI then you need to start breaking down the path into its components, where you don’t today.
> >>>>>> - One area where names as the hierarchical path DOES look right is calling the /auth/projects API - where what the caller wants is a list of projects they can scope to - so you WANT this to be the path you can put in an auth request.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Given that neither can fully protect a 3.6 client, my personal preference is to go with the cleaner logical approach which I believe is the Relax project name constraints (1), with the addition of changing GET /auth/projects to return the path (since this is a specialised API that happens before authentication) - but I am open to persuasion (as the song goes).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are those that might say that perhaps we just can’t change this. I would argue that since this ONLY affects people who actually create hierarchies and that today such hierarchical use is in its infancy, then now IS the time to change this. If we leave it too long, then it will become really hard to change what will by then have become a tough restriction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Henry
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
> >
> 
> My main concern with relaxing the uniqueness is you now have a significant issue with auth changing. Fundamentally you cannot scope to a project under a domain by name and domain name alone. This will break current auth paths and auth mechanisms.
> 
> I personally think we are a bit wedged even with microversions without providing the full path as a name for projects created as such (and current projects retaining the uniqueness or if created via the old api maintaining the uniqueness constraint and new api projects not being represented at all).
> 
> So in short, I am strongly against relaxing uniqueness.
> 
> New (microversion) would make projects that are only represented by full path. Old projects could be represented either way. (For auth/crud that uses project names).
> 
> Old microversion api (today) would require uniqueness constraint and not show/allow full pathname projects.
> 
> This way we do not break auth that works today.
> 
> Most everyone consumes and stores by id (nova, cinder, etc) so we likely won't break much with extended project names.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20160604/9158887d/attachment.html>