Hi Adam, One thing I think we should capture before going deep into design and implementation is to understand the federated identity use cases that our stakeholders need us to support. I'm hoping we all can start capturing these in a federated identity icehouse design summit session.
Thanks, Brad Brad Topol, Ph.D. IBM Distinguished Engineer OpenStack (919) 543-0646 Internet: bto...@us.ibm.com Assistant: Cindy Willman (919) 268-5296 From: Adam Young <ayo...@redhat.com> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: 09/11/2013 11:28 AM Subject: [openstack-dev] Keystone and Multiple Identity Sources David Chadwick wrote up an in depth API extension for Federation: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39499 There is an abfab API proposal as well: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42221/ After discussing this for a while, it dawned on me that Federation should not be something bolted on to Keystone, but rather that it was already central to the design. The SQL Identity backend is a simple password store that collects users into groups. This makes it an identity provider (IdP). Now Keystone can register multiple LDAP servers as Identity backends. There are requests for SAML and ABFAB integration into Keystone as well. Instead of a "Federation API" Keystone should take the key concepts from the API and make them core concepts. What would this mean: 1. Instead of "method": "federation" "protocol": "abfab" it would be "method": "abfab", 2. The rules about multiple round trips (phase) would go under the "abfab" section. 3. There would not be a "protocol_data" section but rather that would be the "abfab" section as well. 4. Provider ID would be standard in the method specific section. One question that has come up has been about Providers, and whether they should be considered endpoints in the Catalog. THere is a couple issues wiuth this: one is that they are not something managed by OpenStack, and two is that they are not necessarily Web Protocols. As such, Provider should probably be First class citizen. We already have LDAP handled this way, although not as an enumerated entity. For the first iteration, I would like to see ABFAB, SAML, and any other protocols we support done the same way as LDAP: a deliberate configuration option for Keystone that will require a config file change. David and I have discussed this in a side conversation, and agree that it requires wider input. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
