Rajini,
10. Yes, then we can probably leave out the user_principal field and keep
the version to be 1.
Other than that, the KIP looks good to me.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:29 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Jun,
>
> 10. Since entity_type "users" is new, shouldn't the JSON for these entities
> have version 1? I have moved "user_principal" out of the config in the
> samples and added to the <user, client> entries as well. But actually, do
> we need to store the non-encoded principal at all? The node name is
> URL-encoded user principal, so it is fairly readable if you are looking in
> ZK and *kafka_configs.sh* will show the non-encoded principal by decoding
> the name from the path (since it needs to do encoding anyway because the
> names specified on the command line will be non-encoded principals, it can
> do decoding too). Perhaps that is sufficient?
>
> 11. I liked the second approach since it looks neat and future-proof. Have
> updated the KIP.
>
> 12. Yes, that is correct.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Rajini
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Rajini,
> >
> > Thanks for the update. A few more questions/comments.
> >
> > 10. For the quota value stored in ZK, since we are adding an optional
> > user_principal field in the json, we should bump the version from 1 to 2.
> > Also, user_principal is not really part of the config values. So, perhaps
> > we should represent it as the following?
> > {
> > "version":2,
> > "config": {
> > "producer_byte_rate":"1024",
> > "consumer_byte_rate":"2048"
> > },
> > "user_principal" : "user1"
> > }
> >
> > Also, we should store user_principal in the following json too, right?
> > // Zookeeper persistence path /users/<encoded-user2>/clients/clientA
> > {
> > "version":1,
> > "config": {
> > "producer_byte_rate":"10",
> > "consumer_byte_rate":"30"
> > }
> > }
> >
> > 11. For the change notification path, would it be better to change it to
> > something like the following and bump up version to 2?
> > // Change notification for quota of <user2, clientA>
> > {
> > "version":2,
> > [
> > { "entity_type": "users",
> > "entity_name": "user2"
> > },
> > { "entity_type": "clients",
> > "entity_name": "clientA"
> > }
> > ]
> > }
> >
> > Alternatively, we could change it to
> > // Change notification for quota of <user2, clientA>
> > {
> > "version":2,
> > "entity_path": "users/user2"
> > }
> >
> > {
> > "version":2,
> > "entity_path": "users/user2/clients/clientA"
> > }
> >
> > 12. Just to clarify on the meaning of remainder quota. If you have quotas
> > like the following,
> > <user1, client1> = 5
> > <user1, client2> = 10
> > <user1> = 12
> > it means that all connections with user1 whose client-id is neither
> client1
> > nor client2 will be sharing a quota of 12, right? In other words, the
> quota
> > of <user1> doesn't include the quota for <user1, client1> and <user1,
> > client2>.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jun
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jun,
> > >
> > > Actually, with quotas stored in different nodes in ZK, it is better to
> > > store remainder quota rather than total quota under /users/<user> so
> that
> > > quota calculations are not dependent on the order of notifications. I
> > have
> > > updated the KIP to reflect that. So the quotas in ZK now always reflect
> > the
> > > quota applied to a group of client connections and use the same format
> as
> > > client-id quotas. But it is not hierarchical, making the configuration
> > > simpler.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jun,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the review. I have updated the KIP:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Added an overview section. Slightly reworded since it is better
> > to
> > > > treat user and client-id as different levels rather than the same
> > > level.
> > > > 2. Yes, it is neater to store quota for each entity in a different
> > > > path in Zookeeper. I put clients under users rather than the other
> > way
> > > > round since that reflects the hierarchy and also keeps a user's
> > quotas
> > > > together under a single sub-tree. I had initially used a single
> node
> > > to
> > > > keep quotas and sub-quotas of a user together so that updates are
> > > atomic
> > > > since changes to sub-quotas also affect remainder quotas for other
> > > clients.
> > > > But I imagine, updates to configs are rare and it is not a big
> > issue.
> > > > 3. I haven't modified the JSON for configuration change
> > notifications.
> > > > The entity_name can now be a subpath that has both user and
> client.
> > > Have
> > > > added an example to the KIP. The downside of keeping clients under
> > > users in
> > > > ZK in 2) is that the change notification for sub-quota has
> > entity_type
> > > > "users". I could extend the JSON to include client separately, but
> > > since
> > > > changes to a client sub-quota does impact other clients of the
> user
> > > as well
> > > > due to change in remainder quota, it may be ok as it is. Do let me
> > > know if
> > > > it looks confusing in the example.
> > > > 4. Agree, updated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi, Rajini,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the updated wiki. Overall, I like the new approach. It
> > covers
> > > >> the common use cases now, is extensible, and is backward
> compatible. A
> > > few
> > > >> comments below.
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. It would be useful to describe a bit at the high level, how the
> new
> > > >> approach works. I think this can be summarized as follows. Quotas
> can
> > be
> > > >> set at user, client-id or <user, client-id> levels. For a given
> client
> > > >> connection, the most specific quota matching the connection will be
> > > >> applied. For example, if both a <user, client-id> and a <user> quota
> > > match
> > > >> a connection, the <user, client-id> quota will be used. If more
> than 1
> > > >> quota at the same level (e.g., a quota on a user and another quota
> on
> > a
> > > >> client-id) match the connection, the user level quota will be used,
> > > i.e.,
> > > >> user quota takes precedence over client-id quota.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. For the ZK data structure, would it be better to store <user,
> > > >> client-id>
> > > >> quota as the following. Then the format of the value in each path is
> > the
> > > >> same. The wiki also mentions that we want to include the original
> user
> > > >> name
> > > >> in the ZK value. Could you describe that in an example?
> > > >> // Zookeeper persistence path /clients/clientA/users/<encoded-user2>
> > > >> {
> > > >> "version":1,
> > > >> "config": {
> > > >> "producer_byte_rate":"10",
> > > >> "consumer_byte_rate":"20"
> > > >> }
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> 3. Could you document the format change of the ZK value in
> > > >> /config/changes/config_change_xxx, if any?
> > > >>
> > > >> 4. For the config command, could we specify the sub-quota like the
> > > >> following, instead of in the config value? This seems more
> intuitive.
> > > >>
> > > >> bin/kafka-configs --zookeeper localhost:2181 --alter --add-config
> > > >> 'producer_byte_rate=1024,consumer_byte_rate=2048' --entity-name
> > > >> clientA --entity-type clients --entity-name user2 --entity-type
> users
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> Jun
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > >> rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Harsha,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The sample configuration under
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-55%3A+Secure+Quotas+for+Authenticated+Users#KIP-55:SecureQuotasforAuthenticatedUsers-QuotaConfiguration
> > > >> > shows
> > > >> > the Zookeeper data for different scenarios.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - *user1* (/users/user1 in ZK) has only user-level quotas
> > > >> > - *user2* (/users/user2 in ZK) defines user-level quotas and
> > > >> sub-quotas
> > > >> > for clients *clientA* and *clientB*. Other client-ids of
> *user2*
> > > >> share
> > > >> > the remaining quota of *user2*.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Rajini,
> > > >> > > How does sub-quotas works in case of authenticated
> > users.
> > > >> > > Where are we maintaining the relation between users
> and
> > > >> their
> > > >> > > client Ids. Can you add an example of zk data under
> > > /users.
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Harsha
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016, at 05:01 AM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > > >> > > > I have updated KIP-55 to reflect the changes from the
> > discussions
> > > in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > voting thread (
> > > >> > > >
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg51610.html
> > ).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Jun/Gwen,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Existing client-id quotas will be used as default client-id
> > quotas
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > users when no user quotas are configured - i.e., default user
> > > quota
> > > >> is
> > > >> > > > unlimited and no user-specific quota override is specified.
> This
> > > >> > enables
> > > >> > > > user rate limits to be configured for ANONYMOUS if required
> in a
> > > >> > cluster
> > > >> > > > that has both PLAINTEXT and SSL/SASL. By default, without any
> > user
> > > >> rate
> > > >> > > > limits set, rate limits for client-ids will apply, retaining
> the
> > > >> > current
> > > >> > > > client-id quota configuration for single-user clusters.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Zookeeper will have two paths /clients with client-id quotas
> > that
> > > >> apply
> > > >> > > > only when user quota is unlimited similar to now. And /users
> > which
> > > >> > > > persists
> > > >> > > > user quotas for any user including ANONYMOUS.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Comments and feedback are appreciated.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Rajini
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Rajini Sivaram
> > > >> > > > <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Jun,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Oops, sorry, I hadn't realized that the last note was on the
> > > >> discuss
> > > >> > > > > thread. Thank you for pointing it out. I have sent another
> > note
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > voting.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >> Rajini,
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> Perhaps it will be clearer if you start the voting in a new
> > > >> thread
> > > >> > > (with
> > > >> > > > >> VOTE in the subject).
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> Jun
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > >> > > > >> rajinisiva...@googlemail.com
> > > >> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >> > I would like to initiate the vote for KIP-55.
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > The KIP details are here: KIP-55: Secure quotas for
> > > >> authenticated
> > > >> > > users
> > > >> > > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-55%3A+Secure+Quotas+for+Authenticated+Users
> > > >> > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> > .
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > The JIRA KAFKA-3492 <
> > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3492
> > > >> > > > >> > >has
> > > >> > > > >> > a draft PR here:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1256
> > .
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > Thank you...
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > Regards,
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >> > Rajini
> > > >> > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > Regards,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Rajini
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Rajini
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Regards,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rajini
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rajini
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
