Also not clear on how the dedicateXyZ problem is being solved in Phase1 (or not). Can I (end user) create a VPC and allow user Bob to create VMs in my VPC?
On 1/21/14 4:20 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >SAML 2.0 is not precluded with this design, it seems. >I found the FS both confusing and illuminating. I think what confuses me >is the interchange of 'acl', 'iam' and 'policy'. >Especially since ACL is used in the networking context. > >IMO, renaming the tables and APIs to not use ACL but IAM would clarify >matters. >For example: >Tables: iam_policy, iam_policy_permission, iam_group >API: createIAMGroup createIAMPolicy createIAMPermission >addIAMPermissionToAclPolicy attachPolicyToIAMGroup addAccountToIAMGroup >(or better, house the api under the client/iam/?command= sub-url) >Annotation: @IamPolicyCheck > >Also, there is no reference to what one would normally find in an IAM user >guide: Principal, Role, etc. >Am I right in assuming that Account is the Principal here? Are there >roles, or even a default role? > >What is envisioned for Phase 2, 3Š > >Ideally, this is a separate service that can be enhanced by 3rd parties. >As an example, I want to provide my DBaaS service on an ACS-powered cloud. >I want to utilize the same Principals (and IAM infrastructure) rather than >provide my own. > >-- >Chiradeep > > > >On 1/21/14 2:01 PM, "Erik Weber" <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Prachi Damle >><prachi.da...@citrix.com>wrote: >> >>> Min and myself would like to propose an identity and access management >>> plugin for CloudStack for the ACS 4.4 release. >>> >>> Here is the functional spec we have drafted for the first phase: >>> >>> >>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Identi >>>t >>>y+and+Access+Management+%28IAM%29+Plugin >>> >>> Currently CloudStack provides very limited IAM services and there are >>> several drawbacks: >>> >>> - Offers few roles out of the box (user and admin) with prebaked access >>> control. There is no way to create customized policies and permissions. >>> - Some resources have access control baked into them. E.g., shared >>> networks, projects etc. >>> - We have to create special dedicateXXX APIs to grant permissions to >>> resources. >>> - Also it does not provide the flexibility to integrate with other RBAC >>> implementations say using AD/LDAP >>> >>> Goal for this feature would be to address these limitations and offer >>>true >>> IAM services in a phased manner. >>> As a first phase, we need to separate out the current access control >>>into >>> a separate component based on the standard IAM terminologies. Also we >>>need >>> to create an access check mechanism to be used by the API layer to >>>avoid >>> the checks scattered over the api/service layer. The read/listing APIs >>>need >>> to be refactored accordingly to consider the policy based access >>>granting. >>> >>> Please provide feedback/suggestions anyone has. >>> >>> >> >>Would love to see SAML 2.0 support, but any IAM solution is a good start >>:-) >> >>-- >>Erik Weber >
