On 09/11/2013 02:05 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, David Chadwick
<d.w.chadw...@kent.ac.uk <mailto:d.w.chadw...@kent.ac.uk>> wrote:
Further supplementary information to Adam's email below, is that
there are already one further federation protocol profiles that
has been published:
for an external Keystone acting as an IdP at
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42107/
and another for SAML has been prepared and is ready for publication.
I would expect several additional federation profiles to be
published in the future, for example, for OpenID Connect and what
ever else might be just around the corner.
Given the fact that the number of federation protocols is not
fixed, and will evolve with time, then I would prefer their method
of integration into Keystone to be common, so that one
"federation" module can handle all the non-protocol specific
federation features, such as policy and trust checking, and this
module can have multiple different protocol handling modules
plugged into it that deal with the protocol specific features
only. This is the method we have adopted in our current
implementation of federation, and have shown that it is a viable
and efficient way of implementation as we currently support three
protocol profiles (SAML, ABFAB and External Keystone).
Thus I prefer
"method": "federation" "protocol": "abfab"
in which the abfab part would be replaced by the particular
protocol, and there are common parameters to be used by the
federation module
instead of "method": "abfab"
as the latter removes the common parameters from federation, and
also means that common code wont be used, unless it is cut and
paste into each protocol specific module.
That sounds like a pretty strong argument in favor of the current
design, assuming the "abfab" parameters are children of the common
"federation" parameters (rather than a sibling of the "federation"
parameters)... which does appear to be the case the current patchset-
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42221/
And this is where David and I disagree. I don't think Federation is "in
addition to Keystone" but rather it is fundamental to Keystone. I don't
think "method" :" federation" is a necessary abstraction. I think what
David is trying to acheive is best done as a set of standards on how to
add any provider: we don't need a wrapper around a wrapper.
Comments?
David
On 11/09/2013 16:25, Adam Young 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.
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
<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
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
