On 09/11/2013 12:35 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Adam Young <ayo...@redhat.com
<mailto:ayo...@redhat.com>> wrote:
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.
That sounds like it fits with the original intention of the "method"
portion of the auth API.
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.
What's the use case for including providers in the service catalog?
i.e. why do Identity API clients need to be aware of the Identity
Providers?
In the federation protocol API, the user can specify the IdP that they
are using. Keystone needs to know what are the set of acceptable IdPs,
somehow. The first thought was reuse of the Service catalog.
It probably makes sense to let an administrator enumerate the IdPs
registered with Keystone, and what protocol each supports.
As such, Provider should probably be First class citizen. We
already have LDAP handled this way, although not as an enumerated
entity.
Can you be more specific? What does it mean to be a first class
citizen in this context? The fact that identity is backed by LDAP
today is abstracted away from Identity API clients, for example.
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
<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
-Dolph
_______________________________________________
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
