Open Stack

On 3/18/19 4:40 PM, melanie witt wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 15:17:06 -0400, Colleen Murphy
> <colleen at gazlene.net> wrote:
>> I noticed there are some sessions with overlapping topics:
>>
>> System scope/RBAC:
>>
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/denver-2019/summit-schedule/events/23712/migrating-nova-apis-to-keystone-scope-types
>>
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/denver-2019/summit-schedule/events/23642/increasing-api-accessibility-with-granular-policy-and-default-roles
>>
>>
>> Unified limits:
>>
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/denver-2019/summit-schedule/events/23715/feedback-gathering-for-unified-limits-proposal
>>
>> https://www.openstack.org/summit/denver-2019/summit-schedule/events/23641/unified-limits-update-and-migration
>>
>>
>> Maybe we should combine some of these? What do you think, Melanie and
>> Lance?

TL;DR I don't think I have anything novel in the sessions I proposed and
they could be consolidated.

I'm not sure how we go about doing that formally, though. I'm happy to
help drive or setup content for either topic, regardless of who's
officially moderating the session. Sorry for the duplication!

>
> On the system scope one for nova, I was thinking of presenting a
> step-by-step plan for migrating to using keystone scope types (based
> on what I learned from discussing with Lance) in order to enable more
> robust use cases for non-admin users, instead of enhancing our legacy
> stuff to enable them. I wanted to run the idea by operators and users
> to get feedback.

++

The session I proposed was driven by the discussion we had around scope
and authorization a few weeks ago. The functionality has been around in
keystone and related libraries from some time and we've had forum
sessions on it in the past. Despite that, there still seems to be plenty
of confusion around the concepts (developers and operators alike). My
goal was to get folks who are familiar with the approach in a room with
operators (at the forum) and developers (at the PTG). I don't think
there is anything novel about my proposals that we couldn't do in Mel's
session.

To be clear, I don't think having nova in the title makes the session
specific to nova's policy. I think there are several nova policies and
questions that would be applicable to other services. In other words, I
imagine the discussion being useful for other developers and operators.
Walking through a migration with nova would be really useful for
operators, too. Keystone can share some of the work we did in Stein as
well, if that helps.

>
> On the unified limits one, the plan is to present a specific proposal
> from John Garbutt on how to migrate nova to unified limits (with the
> more complex part being migrating our existing quota limits => unified
> limits), and get feedback from operators and users.

Same. I proposed this because bnemec originally suggested it on our
Forum proposal brainstorming etherpad [0]. The main driver would be to
get people in a room and pick up where we left off in Denver, especially
since we missed the mark on a couple things for Stein with respect to
unified limits.

[0] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DEN-keystone-forum-sessions
>
> Both are nova-specific, so if there's 1) enough time in the session
> and 2) it's OK to have nova-specific migration talk happening, we
> could combine sessions. It's hard to predict the amount of time needed
> because that depends on whether folks will have much feedback and
> discussion, or not. I think I'm OK either way, so let's see what Lance
> thinks.
>
> Cheers,
> -melanie
>
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190319/1c8814f1/attachment.sig>