On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Dmitry Tantsur <dtant...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/31/2018 06:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > >> On 1/30/2018 9:33 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote: >> >>> At the last PTG we had some time on Monday and Tuesday for >>> cross-project discussions related to baremetal and VM management. We >>> don't currently have that on the schedule for this PTG. There is still >>> some free time available that we can ask for[1]. Should we try to >>> schedule some time for this? >>> >>> From a keystone perspective, some things we'd like to talk about with >>> the BM/VM teams are: >>> >>> - Unified limits[2]: we now have a basic REST API for registering >>> limits in keystone. Next steps are building out libraries that can >>> consume this API and calculate quota usage and limit allocation, and >>> developing models for quotas in project hierarchies. Input from other >>> projects is essential here. >>> - RBAC: we've introduced "system scope"[3] to fix the admin-ness >>> problem, and we'd like to guide other projects through the migration. >>> - Application credentials[4]: this main part of this work is largely >>> done, next steps are implementing better access control for it, which >>> is largely just a keystone team problem but we could also use this >>> time for feedback on the implementation so far >>> >>> There's likely some non-keystone-related things that might be at home >>> in a dedicated BM/VM room too. Do we want to have a dedicated day or >>> two for these projects? Or perhaps not dedicated days, but >>> planned-in-advance meeting time? Or should we wait and schedule it >>> ad-hoc if we feel like we need it? >>> >>> Colleen >>> >>> [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRmqAAQZA1rI >>> zlNJpVp-X60-z6jMn_95BKWtf0csGT9LkDharY-mppI25Kji >>> uRasmK413MxXcoSU7ki/pubhtml?gid=1374855307&single=true >>> [2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/ >>> keystone/queens/limits-api.html >>> [3] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/ >>> keystone/queens/system-scope.html >>> [4] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/ >>> keystone/queens/application-credentials.html >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> ______________ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.op >>> enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >> These all seem like good topics for big cross-project issues. >> >> I've never liked the "BM/VM" platform naming thing, it seems to imply >> that the only things one needs to care about for these discussions is if >> they work on or use nova and ironic, and that's generally not the case. >> > > ++ can we please rename it? I think people (myself included) will expect > specifically something related to bare metal instances co-existing with > virtual ones (e.g. scheduling or networking concerns). Which is also a > great topic, but it does not seem to be present on the list. Fair point. When the "VM/baremetal workgroup" was originally formed, the goal was more about building clouds with both types of resources, making them behave similarly from a user perspective, etc. Somehow we got into talking applications and these other topics came up, which seemed more interesting/pressing to fix. :) Maybe "cross-project identity integration" or something is a better name? // jim
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
