Open Stack

I think, there should not be such thing as default tenant.
If user does not specify tenant in authentication data, ones token should
not be bound to any tenant, and user should have access to resources based
on global role assignments.
If user specify tenant, one should be either explicitly bound to tenant
(probably through UserRoleAssignment model, but it is not the best way) or
in some global role. Then one will have access to resources based on global
role assignments and tenant role assignments.
I'm not sure whether users should be added to a tenant and then to roles in
this tenant or we should remove totally direct link between user and tenant,
so that user is in tenant if and only if one is in any role in this tenant.

Kind regards, Yuriy.


On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 00:07, Nguyen, Liem Manh <liem_m_nguyen at hp.com>wrote:

>  When one creates a user, should a user always have a tenant associated
> with her?  If that’s the case, then the “default” tenant is the tenant that
> the user is associated with at creation time?  Sorry for responding to the
> question with another question, but it is unclear for me from looking at the
> model (there is no non-null constraint on the tenant_id fk on the user
> table).****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Liem****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=hp.com at lists.launchpad.net[mailto:
> openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=hp.com at lists.launchpad.net] *On Behalf Of
> *Ziad Sawalha
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:22 PM
>
> *To:* Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
> openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>
>  ** **
>
> In the example I gave below they are not members of any group and have no
> roles assigned to them. Should they still be authenticated?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From: *"Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services)" <jason.rouault at hp.com>
> *Date: *Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:25:22 +0000
> *To: *Ziad Sawalha <ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com>, Yuriy Taraday <
> yorik.sar at gmail.com>, "openstack at lists.launchpad.net" <
> openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
> *Subject: *RE: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>
> ** **
>
> A user can specify a tenantID at the time of authentication.  If no
> tenantID is specified during authentication, then I would expect the
> ‘default’ tenant for the user would apply.  The capabilities of User1 on
> TenantA (in this case the default tenant for the user) would be determined
> by their role and group assignments within the context of TenantA.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Jason****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Ziad Sawalha [mailto:ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com<ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:35 PM
> *To:* Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
> openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>
>  ****
>
> What if:****
>
>  ****
>
> -          User1 has TenantA as her default tenant****
>
>  ****
>
> Should the service authenticate the user against TenantA? And if so, why?
> What does the 'default tenant' grant User1 on TenantA? It's some nebulous,
>  implied role…****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From: *"Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services)" <jason.rouault at hp.com>
> *Date: *Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:18:44 +0000
> *To: *Ziad Sawalha <ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com>, Yuriy Taraday <
> yorik.sar at gmail.com>, "openstack at lists.launchpad.net" <
> openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
> *Subject: *RE: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>
>  ****
>
> If a user is bound to their default tenant, why wouldn’t any role
> assignments for that user in their default tenant apply?****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> User1 authenticates specifying TenantB, this binds User1 into the context
> of TenantB.  In subsequent web service requests using the token received
> after authentication, the Auth component filter would decorate the headers
> with RoleY.****
>
> If User1 authenticates specifying TenantA, or specifying no Tenant,  this
> binds User1 into the context of TenantA.  The headers would then be
> decorated with RoleX.****
>
>  ****
>
> Jason****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* openstack-bounces+jason.rouault=hp.com at lists.launchpad.net [
> mailto:openstack-bounces+jason.rouault=hp.com at lists.launchpad.net<openstack-bounces+jason.rouault=hp.com at lists.launchpad.net>]
> *On Behalf Of *Ziad Sawalha
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:09 PM
> *To:* Yuriy Taraday; openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>
>  ****
>
> Our goal is to support Nova use cases right now. You can provide access to
> multiple tenants using a role assignment (assigning a user a role on a
> specific tenant effectively binds them to that tenant).****
>
>  ****
>
> However, this raises the issue of what the 'implied' role of a user is when
> they are bound to their *default* tenant. So we're considering how to
> alter the model to clean that up. No great solution yet. Any suggestions are
> welcome….****
>
>  ****
>
> Ziad****
>
>  ****
>
> *From: *Yuriy Taraday <yorik.sar at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:59:08 +0400
> *To: *<openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
> *Subject: *[Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects****
>
>  ****
>
> Currently Keystone model assumes that user is bound to exactly one tenant.
> It conflicts with the fact that in Nova user can have access to several
> projects. ****
>
> Which way will it be?
> ****
>
> Kind regards, Yuriy.****
>
> _______________________________________________ Mailing list:
> https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack at lists.launchpad.netUnsubscribe :
> https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help :
> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp This email may include confidential
> information. If you received it in error, please delete it.****
>
> This email may include confidential information. If you received it in
> error, please delete it.****
>
> This email may include confidential information. If you received it in
> error, please delete it.****
>

-- PASS THROUGH --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20110715/b5ada3af/attachment.html>