d a separate blueprint?
Dan
>
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,
>
> Salvatore
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* netstack-bounces+salvatore.orlando=
> eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net [mailto:
> netstack-bounces+salvatore.orlando=eu.citrix@lists.launchpad.net] *
ore Orlando
Sent: 03 August 2011 23:34
To: Sumit Naiksatam (snaiksat); netstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Netstack] Tackling authN/authZ for Diablo-4
Hi Sumit,
I used the terms "tenant" and "user" according to their definition for Keystone.
Tenant: A container used to gr
et
Subject: RE: [Netstack] Tackling authN/authZ for Diablo-4
Thanks Salv for spelling out the deliverables on this topic.
On the point of the "simplified mode", I wasn't very clear on what you meant by
"Although in theory several users can be defined for a tenant, we will assume
t
Thanks Salv for spelling out the deliverables on this topic.
On the point of the "simplified mode", I wasn't very clear on what you
meant by "Although in theory several users can be defined for a tenant,
we will assume that each user has the same administrative rights." Does
this mean that each
Salvatore,
This sounds good to me; thanks for the writeup! I think the simplified
model is a good first target for Diablo.
> o This can be handled with an authZ middleware which will precede
> the API app in the wsgi pipeline. Even if it could be handled within
> the API layer, I reckon it wil
Thanks Dan.
I'll take care of updating the blueprint.
Salvatore
From: Dan Wendlandt [mailto:d...@nicira.com]
Sent: 03 August 2011 16:13
To: Salvatore Orlando
Cc: netstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Netstack] Tackling authN/authZ for Diablo-4
Hi Salvatore, great summary o
Hi Salvatore, great summary of our discussions. I'm definitely in favor of
focusing on this "basic" auth model for the Diablo timeframe.
Definitely agree that this will use Keystone, but as you mention, this basic
use of keystone should be essentially plug-n-play.
You and I will coordinate on co
7 matches
Mail list logo
