yep, that is what I meant. Thanks Chris
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > Perhaps this is also a good opportunity to try out the new "branch > committers" clause in the bylaws, enabling non-committers who are working > on this to commit to the feature branch. > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hadoop-general/201308.mbox/%3CCACO5Y4we4d8knB_xU3a=hr2gbeqo5m3vau+inba0li1i9e2...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > Chris Nauroth > Hortonworks > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <t...@cloudera.com > >wrote: > > > Larry, > > > > Sorry for the delay answering. Thanks for laying down things, yes, it > makes > > sense. > > > > Given the large scope of the changes, number of JIRAs and number of > > developers involved, wouldn't make sense to create a feature branch for > all > > this work not to destabilize (more ;) trunk? > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Larry McCay <lmc...@hortonworks.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The following JIRA was filed to provide a token and basic authority > > > implementation for this effort: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9781 > > > > > > I have attached an initial patch though have yet to submit it as one > > since > > > it is dependent on the patch for CMF that was posted to: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9534 > > > and this patch still has a couple outstanding issues - javac warnings > for > > > com.sun classes for certification generation and 11 javadoc warnings. > > > > > > Please feel free to review the patches and raise any questions or > > concerns > > > related to them. > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Larry McCay <lmc...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello All - > > > > > > > > In an effort to scope an initial iteration that provides value to the > > > community while focusing on the pluggable authentication aspects, I've > > > written a description for "Iteration 1". It identifies the goal of the > > > iteration, the endstate and a set of initial usecases. It also > enumerates > > > the components that are required for each usecase. There is a scope > > section > > > that details specific things that should be kept out of the first > > > iteration. This is certainly up for discussion. There may be some of > > these > > > things that can be contributed in short order. If we can add some > things > > in > > > without unnecessary complexity for the identified usecases then we > > should. > > > > > > > > @Alejandro - please review this and see whether it satisfies your > point > > > for a definition of what we are building. > > > > > > > > In addition to the document that I will paste here as text and > attach a > > > pdf version, we have a couple patches for components that are > identified > > in > > > the document. > > > > Specifically, COMP-7 and COMP-8. > > > > > > > > I will be posting COMP-8 patch to the HADOOP-9534 JIRA which was > filed > > > specifically for that functionality. > > > > COMP-7 is a small set of classes to introduce JsonWebToken as the > token > > > format and a basic JsonWebTokenAuthority that can issue and verify > these > > > tokens. > > > > > > > > Since there is no JIRA for this yet, I will likely file a new JIRA > for > > a > > > SSO token implementation. > > > > > > > > Both of these patches assume to be modules within > > > hadoop-common/hadoop-common-project. > > > > While they are relatively small, I think that they will be pulled in > by > > > other modules such as hadoop-auth which would likely not want a > > dependency > > > on something larger like > > hadoop-common/hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common. > > > > > > > > This is certainly something that we should discuss within the > community > > > for this effort though - that being, exactly how to add these libraries > > so > > > that they are most easily consumed by existing projects. > > > > > > > > Anyway, the following is the Iteration-1 document - it is also > attached > > > as a pdf: > > > > > > > > Iteration 1: Pluggable User Authentication and Federation > > > > > > > > Introduction > > > > The intent of this effort is to bootstrap the development of > pluggable > > > token-based authentication mechanisms to support certain goals of > > > enterprise authentication integrations. By restricting the scope of > this > > > effort, we hope to provide immediate benefit to the community while > > keeping > > > the initial contribution to a manageable size that can be easily > > reviewed, > > > understood and extended with further development through follow up > JIRAs > > > and related iterations. > > > > > > > > Iteration Endstate > > > > Once complete, this effort will have extended the authentication > > > mechanisms - for all client types - from the existing: Simple, Kerberos > > and > > > Plain (for RPC) to include LDAP authentication and SAML based > federation. > > > In addition, the ability to provide additional/custom authentication > > > mechanisms will be enabled for users to plug in their preferred > > mechanisms. > > > > > > > > Project Scope > > > > The scope of this effort is a subset of the features covered by the > > > overviews of HADOOP-9392 and HADOOP-9533. This effort concentrates on > > > enabling Hadoop to issue, accept/validate SSO tokens of its own. The > > > pluggable authentication mechanism within SASL/RPC layer and the > > > authentication filter pluggability for REST and UI components will be > > > leveraged and extended to support the results of this effort. > > > > > > > > Out of Scope > > > > In order to scope the initial deliverable as the minimally viable > > > product, a handful of things have been simplified or left out of scope > > for > > > this effort. This is not meant to say that these aspects are not useful > > or > > > not needed but that they are not necessary for this iteration. We do > > > however need to ensure that we don’t do anything to preclude adding > them > > in > > > future iterations. > > > > 1. Additional Attributes - the result of authentication will continue > > to > > > use the existing hadoop tokens and identity representations. Additional > > > attributes used for finer grained authorization decisions will be added > > > through follow-up efforts. > > > > 2. Token revocation - the ability to revoke issued identity tokens > will > > > be added later > > > > 3. Multi-factor authentication - this will likely require additional > > > attributes and is not necessary for this iteration. > > > > 4. Authorization changes - we will require additional attributes for > > the > > > fine-grained access control plans. This is not needed for this > iteration. > > > > 5. Domains - we assume a single flat domain for all users > > > > 6. Kinit alternative - we can leverage existing REST clients such as > > > cURL to retrieve tokens through authentication and federation for the > > time > > > being > > > > 7. A specific authentication framework isn’t really necessary within > > the > > > REST endpoints for this iteration. If one is available then we can use > it > > > otherwise we can leverage existing things like Apache Shiro within a > > > servlet filter. > > > > > > > > In Scope > > > > What is in scope for this effort is defined by the usecases described > > > below. Components required for supporting the usecases are summarized > for > > > each client type. Each component is a candidate for a JIRA subtask - > > though > > > multiple components are likely to be included in a JIRA to represent a > > set > > > of functionality rather than individual JIRAs per component. > > > > > > > > Terminology and Naming > > > > The terms and names of components within this document are merely > > > descriptive of the functionality that they represent. Any similarity or > > > difference in names or terms from those that are found in other > documents > > > are not intended to make any statement about those other documents or > the > > > descriptions within. This document represents the pluggable > > authentication > > > mechanisms and server functionality required to replace Kerberos. > > > > > > > > Ultimately, the naming of the implementation classes will be a > product > > > of the patches accepted by the community. > > > > > > > > Usecases: > > > > client types: REST, CLI, UI > > > > authentication types: Simple, Kerberos, authentication/LDAP, > > > federation/SAML > > > > > > > > Simple and Kerberos > > > > Simple and Kerberos usecases continue to work as they do today. The > > > addition of Authentication/LDAP and Federation/SAML are added through > the > > > existing pluggability points either as they are or with required > > extension. > > > Either way, continued support for Simple and Kerberos must not require > > > changes to existing deployments in the field as a result of this > effort. > > > > > > > > REST > > > > USECASE REST-1 Authentication/LDAP: > > > > For REST clients, we will provide the ability to: > > > > 1. use cURL to Authenticate via LDAP through an IdP endpoint exposed > by > > > an AuthenticationServer instance via REST calls to: > > > > a. authenticate - passing username/password returning a hadoop > > > id_token > > > > b. get-access-token - from the TokenGrantingService by passing the > > > hadoop id_token as an Authorization: Bearer token along with the > desired > > > service name (master service name) returning a hadoop access token > > > > 2. Successfully invoke a hadoop service REST API passing the hadoop > > > access token through an HTTP header as an Authorization Bearer token > > > > a. validation of the incoming token on the service endpoint is > > > accomplished by an SSOAuthenticationHandler > > > > 3. Successfully block access to a REST resource when presenting a > > hadoop > > > access token intended for a different service > > > > a. validation of the incoming token on the service endpoint is > > > accomplished by an SSOAuthenticationHandler > > > > > > > > USECASE REST-2 Federation/SAML: > > > > We will also provide federation capabilities for REST clients such > > that: > > > > 1. acquire SAML assertion token from a trusted IdP (shibboleth?) and > > > persist in a permissions protected file - ie. > ~/.hadoop_tokens/.idp_token > > > > 2. use cURL to Federate a token from a trusted IdP through an SP > > > endpoint exposed by an AuthenticationServer(FederationServer?) instance > > via > > > REST calls to: > > > > a. federate - passing a SAML assertion as an Authorization: Bearer > > > token returning a hadoop id_token > > > > - can copy and paste from commandline or use cat to include > > > persisted token through "--Header Authorization: Bearer 'cat > > > ~/.hadoop_tokens/.id_token'" > > > > b. get-access-token - from the TokenGrantingService by passing the > > > hadoop id_token as an Authorization: Bearer token along with the > desired > > > service name (master service name) to the TokenGrantingService > returning > > a > > > hadoop access token > > > > 3. Successfully invoke a hadoop service REST API passing the hadoop > > > access token through an HTTP header as an Authorization Bearer token > > > > a. validation of the incoming token on the service endpoint is > > > accomplished by an SSOAuthenticationHandler > > > > 4. Successfully block access to a REST resource when presenting a > > hadoop > > > access token intended for a different service > > > > a. validation of the incoming token on the service endpoint is > > > accomplished by an SSOAuthenticationHandler > > > > > > > > REQUIRED COMPONENTS for REST USECASES: > > > > COMP-1. REST client - cURL or similar > > > > COMP-2. REST endpoint for BASIC authentication to LDAP - IdP endpoint > > > example - returning hadoop id_token > > > > COMP-3. REST endpoint for federation with SAML Bearer token - > > shibboleth > > > SP?|OpenSAML? - returning hadoop id_token > > > > COMP-4. REST TokenGrantingServer endpoint for acquiring hadoop access > > > tokens from hadoop id_tokens > > > > COMP-5. SSOAuthenticationHandler to validate incoming hadoop access > > > tokens > > > > COMP-6. some source of a SAML assertion - shibboleth IdP? > > > > COMP-7. hadoop token and authority implementations > > > > COMP-8. core services for crypto support for signing, verifying and > PKI > > > management > > > > > > > > CLI > > > > USECASE CLI-1 Authentication/LDAP: > > > > For CLI/RPC clients, we will provide the ability to: > > > > 1. use cURL to Authenticate via LDAP through an IdP endpoint exposed > by > > > an AuthenticationServer instance via REST calls to: > > > > a. authenticate - passing username/password returning a hadoop > > > id_token > > > > - for RPC clients we need to persist the returned hadoop > identity > > > token in a file protected by fs permissions so that it may be leveraged > > > until expiry > > > > - directing the returned response to a file may suffice for now > > > something like ">~/.hadoop_tokens/.id_token" > > > > 2. use hadoop CLI to invoke RPC API on a specific hadoop service > > > > a. RPC client negotiates a TokenAuth method through SASL layer, > > > hadoop id_token is retrieved from ~/.hadoop_tokens/.id_token is passed > as > > > Authorization: Bearer token to the get-access-token REST endpoint > exposed > > > by TokenGrantingService returning a hadoop access token > > > > b. RPC server side validates the presented hadoop access token and > > > continues to serve request > > > > c. Successfully invoke a hadoop service RPC API > > > > > > > > USECASE CLI-2 Federation/SAML: > > > > For CLI/RPC clients, we will provide the ability to: > > > > 1. acquire SAML assertion token from a trusted IdP (shibboleth?) and > > > persist in a permissions protected file - ie. > ~/.hadoop_tokens/.idp_token > > > > 2. use cURL to Federate a token from a trusted IdP through an SP > > > endpoint exposed by an AuthenticationServer(FederationServer?) instance > > via > > > REST calls to: > > > > a. federate - passing a SAML assertion as an Authorization: Bearer > > > token returning a hadoop id_token > > > > - can copy and paste from commandline or use cat to include > > > previously persisted token through "--Header Authorization: Bearer 'cat > > > ~/.hadoop_tokens/.id_token'" > > > > 3. use hadoop CLI to invoke RPC API on a specific hadoop service > > > > a. RPC client negotiates a TokenAuth method through SASL layer, > > > hadoop id_token is retrieved from ~/.hadoop_tokens/.id_token is passed > as > > > Authorization: Bearer token to the get-access-token REST endpoint > exposed > > > by TokenGrantingService returning a hadoop access token > > > > b. RPC server side validates the presented hadoop access token and > > > continues to serve request > > > > c. Successfully invoke a hadoop service RPC API > > > > > > > > REQUIRED COMPONENTS for CLI USECASES - (beyond those required for > > REST): > > > > COMP-9. TokenAuth Method negotiation, etc > > > > COMP-10. Client side implementation to leverage REST endpoint for > > > acquiring hadoop access tokens given a hadoop id_token > > > > COMP-11. Server side implementation to validate incoming hadoop > access > > > tokens > > > > > > > > UI > > > > Various Hadoop services have their own web UI consoles for > > > administration and end user interactions. These consoles need to also > > > benefit from the pluggability of authentication mechansims to be on par > > > with the access control of the cluster REST and RPC APIs. > > > > Web consoles are protected with an WebSSOAuthenticationHandler which > > > will be configured for either authentication or federation. > > > > > > > > USECASE UI-1 Authentication/LDAP: > > > > For the authentication usecase: > > > > 1. User’s browser requests access to a UI console page > > > > 2. WebSSOAuthenticationHandler intercepts the request and redirects > the > > > browser to an IdP web endpoint exposed by the AuthenticationServer > > passing > > > the requested url as the redirect_url > > > > 3. IdP web endpoint presents the user with a FORM over https > > > > a. user provides username/password and submits the FORM > > > > 4. AuthenticationServer authenticates the user with provided > > credentials > > > against the configured LDAP server and: > > > > a. leverages a servlet filter or other authentication mechanism > for > > > the endpoint and authenticates the user with a simple LDAP bind with > > > username and password > > > > b. acquires a hadoop id_token and uses it to acquire the required > > > hadoop access token which is added as a cookie > > > > c. redirects the browser to the original service UI resource via > the > > > provided redirect_url > > > > 5. WebSSOAuthenticationHandler for the original UI resource > > interrogates > > > the incoming request again for an authcookie that contains an access > > token > > > upon finding one: > > > > a. validates the incoming token > > > > b. returns the AuthenticationToken as per AuthenticationHandler > > > contract > > > > c. AuthenticationFilter adds the hadoop auth cookie with the > > expected > > > token > > > > d. serves requested resource for valid tokens > > > > e. subsequent requests are handled by the AuthenticationFilter > > > recognition of the hadoop auth cookie > > > > > > > > USECASE UI-2 Federation/SAML: > > > > For the federation usecase: > > > > 1. User’s browser requests access to a UI console page > > > > 2. WebSSOAuthenticationHandler intercepts the request and redirects > the > > > browser to an SP web endpoint exposed by the AuthenticationServer > passing > > > the requested url as the redirect_url. This endpoint: > > > > a. is dedicated to redirecting to the external IdP passing the > > > required parameters which may include a redirect_url back to itself as > > well > > > as encoding the original redirect_url so that it can determine it on > the > > > way back to the client > > > > 3. the IdP: > > > > a. challenges the user for credentials and authenticates the user > > > > b. creates appropriate token/cookie and redirects back to the > > > AuthenticationServer endpoint > > > > 4. AuthenticationServer endpoint: > > > > a. extracts the expected token/cookie from the incoming request > and > > > validates it > > > > b. creates a hadoop id_token > > > > c. acquires a hadoop access token for the id_token > > > > d. creates appropriate cookie and redirects back to the original > > > redirect_url - being the requested resource > > > > 5. WebSSOAuthenticationHandler for the original UI resource > > interrogates > > > the incoming request again for an authcookie that contains an access > > token > > > upon finding one: > > > > a. validates the incoming token > > > > b. returns the AuthenticationToken as per AuthenticationHandler > > > contrac > > > > c. AuthenticationFilter adds the hadoop auth cookie with the > > expected > > > token > > > > d. serves requested resource for valid tokens > > > > e. subsequent requests are handled by the AuthenticationFilter > > > recognition of the hadoop auth cookie > > > > REQUIRED COMPONENTS for UI USECASES: > > > > COMP-12. WebSSOAuthenticationHandler > > > > COMP-13. IdP Web Endpoint within AuthenticationServer for FORM based > > > login > > > > COMP-14. SP Web Endpoint within AuthenticationServer for 3rd party > > token > > > federation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Brian Swan < > brian.s...@microsoft.com> > > > wrote: > > > > Thanks, Larry. That is what I was trying to say, but you've said it > > > better and in more detail. :-) To extract from what you are saying: "If > > we > > > were to reframe the immediate scope to the lowest common denominator of > > > what is needed for accepting tokens in authentication plugins then we > > > gain... an end-state for the lowest common denominator that enables > code > > > patches in the near-term is the best of both worlds." > > > > > > > > -Brian > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Larry McCay [mailto:lmc...@hortonworks.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:40 AM > > > > To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org > > > > Cc: da...@yahoo-inc.com; Kai Zheng; Alejandro Abdelnur > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components > > > > > > > > It seems to me that we can have the best of both worlds here...it's > all > > > about the scoping. > > > > > > > > If we were to reframe the immediate scope to the lowest common > > > denominator of what is needed for accepting tokens in authentication > > > plugins then we gain: > > > > > > > > 1. a very manageable scope to define and agree upon 2. a deliverable > > > that should be useful in and of itself 3. a foundation for community > > > collaboration that we build on for higher level solutions built on this > > > lowest common denominator and experience as a working community > > > > > > > > So, to Alejandro's point, perhaps we need to define what would make > #2 > > > above true - this could serve as the "what" we are building instead of > > the > > > "how" to build it. > > > > Including: > > > > a. project structure within hadoop-common-project/common-security or > > the > > > like b. the usecases that would need to be enabled to make it a self > > > contained and useful contribution - without higher level solutions c. > the > > > JIRA/s for contributing patches d. what specific patches will be needed > > to > > > accomplished the usecases in #b > > > > > > > > In other words, an end-state for the lowest common denominator that > > > enables code patches in the near-term is the best of both worlds. > > > > > > > > I think this may be a good way to bootstrap the collaboration process > > > for our emerging security community rather than trying to tackle a huge > > > vision all at once. > > > > > > > > @Alejandro - if you have something else in mind that would bootstrap > > > this process - that would great - please advise. > > > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Brian Swan <brian.s...@microsoft.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Alejandro, all- > > > > > > > > > > There seems to be agreement on the broad stroke description of the > > > components needed to achieve pluggable token authentication (I'm sure > > I'll > > > be corrected if that isn't the case). However, discussion of the > details > > of > > > those components doesn't seem to be moving forward. I think this is > > because > > > the details are really best understood through code. I also see *a* > (i.e. > > > one of many possible) token format and pluggable authentication > > mechanisms > > > within the RPC layer as components that can have immediate benefit to > > > Hadoop users AND still allow flexibility in the larger design. So, I > > think > > > the best way to move the conversation of "what we are aiming for" > forward > > > is to start looking at code for these components. I am especially > > > interested in moving forward with pluggable authentication mechanisms > > > within the RPC layer and would love to see what others have done in > this > > > area (if anything). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > -Brian > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:15 AM > > > > > To: Larry McCay > > > > > Cc: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org; da...@yahoo-inc.com; Kai Zheng > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components > > > > > > > > > > Larry, all, > > > > > > > > > > Still is not clear to me what is the end state we are aiming for, > or > > > that we even agree on that. > > > > > > > > > > IMO, Instead trying to agree what to do, we should first agree on > > the > > > final state, then we see what should be changed to there there, then we > > see > > > how we change things to get there. > > > > > > > > > > The different documents out there focus more on how. > > > > > > > > > > We not try to say how before we know what. > > > > > > > > > > Thx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Larry McCay < > lmc...@hortonworks.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> All - > > > > >> > > > > >> After combing through this thread - as well as the summit session > > > > >> summary thread, I think that we have the following two items that > we > > > > >> can probably move forward with: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1. TokenAuth method - assuming this means the pluggable > > > > >> authentication mechanisms within the RPC layer (2 votes: Kai and > > > > >> Kyle) 2. An actual Hadoop Token format (2 votes: Brian and myself) > > > > >> > > > > >> I propose that we attack both of these aspects as one. Let's > provide > > > > >> the structure and interfaces of the pluggable framework for use in > > > > >> the RPC layer through leveraging Daryn's pluggability work and POC > > it > > > > >> with a particular token format (not necessarily the only format > ever > > > > >> supported - we just need one to start). If there has already been > > > > >> work done in this area by anyone then please speak up and commit > to > > > > >> providing a patch - so that we don't duplicate effort. > > > > >> > > > > >> @Daryn - is there a particular Jira or set of Jiras that we can > look > > > > >> at to discern the pluggability mechanism details? Documentation of > > it > > > > >> would be great as well. > > > > >> @Kai - do you have existing code for the pluggable token > > > > >> authentication mechanism - if not, we can take a stab at > > representing > > > > >> it with interfaces and/or POC code. > > > > >> I can standup and say that we have a token format that we have > been > > > > >> working with already and can provide a patch that represents it > as a > > > > >> contribution to test out the pluggable tokenAuth. > > > > >> > > > > >> These patches will provide progress toward code being the central > > > > >> discussion vehicle. As a community, we can then incrementally > build > > > > >> on that foundation in order to collaboratively deliver the common > > > vision. > > > > >> > > > > >> In the absence of any other home for posting such patches, let's > > > > >> assume that they will be attached to HADOOP-9392 - or a dedicated > > > > >> subtask for this particular aspect/s - I will leave that detail to > > > Kai. > > > > >> > > > > >> @Alejandro, being the only voice on this thread that isn't > > > > >> represented in the votes above, please feel free to agree or > > disagree > > > with this direction. > > > > >> > > > > >> thanks, > > > > >> > > > > >> --larry > > > > >> > > > > >> On Jul 5, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Larry McCay <lmc...@hortonworks.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Hi Andy - > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Happy Fourth of July to you and yours. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Same to you and yours. :-) > > > > >>> We had some fun in the sun for a change - we've had nothing but > > rain > > > > >>> on > > > > >> the east coast lately. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> My concern here is there may have been a misinterpretation or > lack > > > > >>>> of consensus on what is meant by "clean slate" > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Apparently so. > > > > >>> On the pre-summit call, I stated that I was interested in > > > > >>> reconciling > > > > >> the jiras so that we had one to work from. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> You recommended that we set them aside for the time being - with > > the > > > > >> understanding that work would continue on your side (and our's as > > > > >> well) - and approach the community discussion from a clean slate. > > > > >>> We seemed to do this at the summit session quite well. > > > > >>> It was my understanding that this community discussion would live > > > > >>> beyond > > > > >> the summit and continue on this list. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> While closing the summit session we agreed to follow up on > > > > >>> common-dev > > > > >> with first a summary then a discussion of the moving parts. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I never expected the previous work to be abandoned and fully > > > > >>> expected it > > > > >> to inform the discussion that happened here. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> If you would like to reframe what clean slate was supposed to > mean > > > > >>> or > > > > >> describe what it means now - that would be welcome - before I > waste > > > > >> anymore time trying to facilitate a community discussion that is > > > > >> apparently not wanted. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Nowhere in this > > > > >>>> picture are self appointed "master JIRAs" and such, which have > > been > > > > >>>> disappointing to see crop up, we should be collaboratively > coding > > > > >>>> not planting flags. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I don't know what you mean by self-appointed master JIRAs. > > > > >>> It has certainly not been anyone's intention to disappoint. > > > > >>> Any mention of a new JIRA was just to have a clear context to > > gather > > > > >>> the > > > > >> agreed upon points - previous and/or existing JIRAs would easily > be > > > linked. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Planting flags... I need to go back and read my discussion point > > > > >>> about the > > > > >> JIRA and see how this is the impression that was made. > > > > >>> That is not how I define success. The only flags that count is > > code. > > > > >> What we are lacking is the roadmap on which to put the code. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> I read Kai's latest document as something approaching today's > > > > >>>> consensus > > > > >> (or > > > > >>>> at least a common point of view?) rather than a historical > > document. > > > > >>>> Perhaps he and it can be given equal share of the consideration. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I definitely read it as something that has evolved into something > > > > >> approaching what we have been talking about so far. There has not > > > > >> however been enough discussion anywhere near the level of detail > in > > > > >> that document and more details are needed for each component in > the > > > design. > > > > >>> Why the work in that document should not be fed into the > community > > > > >> discussion as anyone else's would be - I fail to understand. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> My suggestion continues to be that you should take that document > > and > > > > >> speak to the inventory of moving parts as we agreed. > > > > >>> As these are agreed upon, we will ensure that the appropriate > > > > >>> subtasks > > > > >> are filed against whatever JIRA is to host them - don't really > care > > > > >> much which it is. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I don't really want to continue with two separate JIRAs - as I > > > > >>> stated > > > > >> long ago - but until we understand what the pieces are and how > they > > > > >> relate then they can't be consolidated. > > > > >>> Even if 9533 ended up being repurposed as the server instance of > > the > > > > >> work - it should be a subtask of a larger one - if that is to be > > > > >> 9392, so be it. > > > > >>> We still need to define all the pieces of the larger picture > before > > > > >>> that > > > > >> can be done. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> What I thought was the clean slate approach to the discussion > > seemed > > > > >>> a > > > > >> very reasonable way to make all this happen. > > > > >>> If you would like to restate what you intended by it or something > > > > >>> else > > > > >> equally as reasonable as a way to move forward that would be > > awesome. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I will be happy to work toward the roadmap with everyone once it > is > > > > >> articulated, understood and actionable. > > > > >>> In the meantime, I have work to do. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> thanks, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> --larry > > > > >>> > > > > >>> BTW - I meant to quote you in an earlier response and ended up > > > > >>> saying it > > > > >> was Aaron instead. Not sure what happened there. :-) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Hi Larry (and all), > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Happy Fourth of July to you and yours. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> In our shop Kai and Tianyou are already doing the coding, so I'd > > > > >>>> defer > > > > >> to > > > > >>>> them on the detailed points. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> My concern here is there may have been a misinterpretation or > lack > > > > >>>> of consensus on what is meant by "clean slate". Hopefully that > can > > > > >>>> be > > > > >> quickly > > > > >>>> cleared up. Certainly we did not mean ignore all that came > before. > > > > >>>> The > > > > >> idea > > > > >>>> was to reset discussions to find common ground and new direction > > > > >>>> where > > > > >> we > > > > >>>> are working together, not in conflict, on an agreed upon set of > > > > >>>> design points and tasks. There's been a lot of good discussion > and > > > > >>>> design preceeding that we should figure out how to port over. > > > > >>>> Nowhere in this picture are self appointed "master JIRAs" and > > such, > > > > >>>> which have been disappointing to see crop up, we should be > > > > >>>> collaboratively coding not planting flags. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I read Kai's latest document as something approaching today's > > > > >>>> consensus > > > > >> (or > > > > >>>> at least a common point of view?) rather than a historical > > document. > > > > >>>> Perhaps he and it can be given equal share of the consideration. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Larry McCay wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Hey Andrew - > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I largely agree with that statement. > > > > >>>>> My intention was to let the differences be worked out within > the > > > > >>>>> individual components once they were identified and subtasks > > > created. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> My reference to HSSO was really referring to a SSO *server* > based > > > > >> design > > > > >>>>> which was not clearly articulated in the earlier documents. > > > > >>>>> We aren't trying to compare and contrast one design over > another > > > > >> anymore. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Let's move this collaboration along as we've mapped out and the > > > > >>>>> differences in the details will reveal themselves and be > > addressed > > > > >> within > > > > >>>>> their components. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I've actually been looking forward to you weighing in on the > > > > >>>>> actual discussion points in this thread. > > > > >>>>> Could you do that? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> At this point, I am most interested in your thoughts on a > single > > > > >>>>> jira > > > > >> to > > > > >>>>> represent all of this work and whether we should start > discussing > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >> SSO > > > > >>>>> Tokens. > > > > >>>>> If you think there are discussion points missing from that > list, > > > > >>>>> feel > > > > >> free > > > > >>>>> to add to it. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> thanks, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> --larry > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Andrew Purtell < > apurt...@apache.org> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Hi Larry, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Of course I'll let Kai speak for himself. However, let me > point > > > > >>>>>> out > > > > >> that, > > > > >>>>>> while the differences between the competing JIRAs have been > > > > >>>>>> reduced > > > > >> for > > > > >>>>>> sure, there were some key differences that didn't just > > disappear. > > > > >>>>>> Subsequent discussion will make that clear. I also disagree > with > > > > >>>>>> your characterization that we have simply endorsed all of the > > > > >>>>>> design > > > > >> decisions > > > > >>>>>> of the so-called HSSO, this is taking a mile from an inch. We > > are > > > > >> here to > > > > >>>>>> engage in a collaborative process as peers. I've been > encouraged > > > > >>>>>> by > > > > >> the > > > > >>>>>> spirit of the discussions up to this point and hope that can > > > > >>>>>> continue beyond one design summit. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Larry McCay > > > > >>>>>> <lmc...@hortonworks.com> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Kai - > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I think that I need to clarify something... > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> This is not an update for 9533 but a continuation of the > > > > >>>>>>> discussions > > > > >>>>> that > > > > >>>>>>> are focused on a fresh look at a SSO for Hadoop. > > > > >>>>>>> We've agreed to leave our previous designs behind and > therefore > > > > >>>>>>> we > > > > >>>>> aren't > > > > >>>>>>> really seeing it as an HSSO layered on top of TAS approach or > > an > > > > >> HSSO vs > > > > >>>>>>> TAS discussion. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Your latest design revision actually makes it clear that you > > are > > > > >>>>>>> now targeting exactly what was described as HSSO - so > comparing > > > > >>>>>>> and > > > > >>>>> contrasting > > > > >>>>>>> is not going to add any value. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> What we need you to do at this point, is to look at those > > > > >>>>>>> high-level components described on this thread and comment on > > > > >>>>>>> whether we need additional components or any that are listed > > > > >>>>>>> that don't seem > > > > >> necessary > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>> you and why. > > > > >>>>>>> In other words, we need to define and agree on the work that > > has > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > >> be > > > > >>>>>>> done. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> We also need to determine those components that need to be > done > > > > >> before > > > > >>>>>>> anything else can be started. > > > > >>>>>>> I happen to agree with Brian that #4 Hadoop SSO Tokens are > > > > >>>>>>> central to > > > > >>>>> all > > > > >>>>>>> the other components and should probably be defined and POC'd > > in > > > > >> short > > > > >>>>>>> order. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Personally, I think that continuing the separation of 9533 > and > > > > >>>>>>> 9392 > > > > >> will > > > > >>>>>>> do this effort a disservice. There doesn't seem to be enough > > > > >> differences > > > > >>>>>>> between the two to justify separate jiras anymore. It may be > > > > >>>>>>> best to > > > > >>>>> file a > > > > >>>>>>> new one that reflects a single vision without the extra cruft > > > > >>>>>>> that > > > > >> has > > > > >>>>>>> built up in either of the existing ones. We would certainly > > > > >>>>>>> reference > > > > >>>>> the > > > > >>>>>>> existing ones within the new one. This approach would align > > with > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > >>>>> spirit > > > > >>>>>>> of the discussions up to this point. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I am prepared to start a discussion around the shape of the > two > > > > >> Hadoop > > > > >>>>> SSO > > > > >>>>>>> tokens: identity and access. If this is what others feel the > > > > >>>>>>> next > > > > >> topic > > > > >>>>>>> should be. > > > > >>>>>>> If we can identify a jira home for it, we can do it there - > > > > >> otherwise we > > > > >>>>>>> can create another DISCUSS thread for it. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> thanks, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> --larry > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:39 PM, "Zheng, Kai" < > kai.zh...@intel.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Larry, > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the update. Good to see that with this update we > > are > > > > >>>>>>>> now > > > > >>>>>>> aligned on most points. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I have also updated our TokenAuth design in HADOOP-9392. The > > > > >>>>>>>> new > > > > >>>>>>> revision incorporates feedback and suggestions in related > > > > >>>>>>> discussion > > > > >>>>> with > > > > >>>>>>> the community, particularly from Microsoft and others > attending > > > > >>>>>>> the Security design lounge session at the Hadoop summit. > > Summary > > > > >>>>>>> of the > > > > >>>>> changes: > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. Revised the approach to now use two tokens, Identity > > Token > > > > >> plus > > > > >>>>>>> Access Token, particularly considering our authorization > > > > >>>>>>> framework > > > > >> and > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility with HSSO; > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. Introduced Authorization Server (AS) from our > > > authorization > > > > >>>>>>> framework into the flow that issues access tokens for clients > > > > >>>>>>> with > > > > >>>>> identity > > > > >>>>>>> tokens to access services; > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. Refined proxy access token and the proxy/impersonation > > > flow; > > > > >>>>>>>> 4. Refined the browser web SSO flow regarding access to > > > Hadoop > > > > >> web > > > > >>>>>>> services; > > > > >>>>>>>> 5. Added Hadoop RPC access flow regard > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -- > > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> - Andy > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > > Piet > > > > >>>> Hein (via Tom White) > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Alejandro > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Iteration1PluggableUserAuthenticationandFederation.pdf> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alejandro > > > -- Alejandro
