sts.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>
mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
I guess sfdc disagrees with you - they allow e.g Dell to use a single sign on
to authenticate to their services - as a @dell user, you c
What's (who is) sfdc?
From: andi abes [mailto:andi.a...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 02:07 PM
To: Yuriy Taraday
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
I guess sfdc disagrees with you - they allow e.g Dell to use a single si
#x27;s not a trivial problem and so far out of scope for Diablo.
Z
From: andi abes [mailto:andi.a...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 02:11 PM
To: andi abes
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
Just to clarify - yuriy, what you&#
>>>> jason.roua...@hp.com>
>>>> *Date: *Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:25:22 +
>>>> *To: *Ziad Sawalha <
>>>>
>>>> ziad.sawa...@rackspace.com>, Yuriy Taraday <
>>>>
>>>> yorik@gmail.com>
;>>
>>> Liem
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=
>>> <http://hp.com>hp.com@<http://lists.launchpad.net>
>>> lists.launchpad.net [mailto:openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=<http://hp.c
ck@lists.launchpad.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> In the example I gave below they are not members of any group and have no
>>> roles assigned to them. Should they still be authentic
>>> table).
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Liem
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=hp@lists.launchpad.net[mailto:
>>> openstack-bounces+liem_m_nguyen=
ad Sawalha
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:22 PM
>>
>> *To:* Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
>> openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> In the
Sawalha; Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services)
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
Yeah, I agree that we should not duplicate user-tenant link this way.
But I cannot understand why should we have anything default. I think,
everything should be explicit here. It'll make
o:* openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> *Cc:* Ziad Sawalha; Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Nguyen, Liem Manh
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
>
> ** **
>
> I think, there should not be such thing as default tenant.
>
> If user does
s.launchpad.net
Cc: Ziad Sawalha; Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Nguyen, Liem Manh
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
I think, there should not be such thing as default tenant.
If user does not specify tenant in authentication data, ones token should not
be bound to an
nt:* Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:22 PM
>
> *To:* Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
> openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
>
> ** **
>
> In the example I gave below they are not members
, 2011 12:22 PM
To: Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
In the example I gave below they are not members of any group and have no roles
assigned to them. Should they still be authenticated?
From:
Sawalha [mailto:ziad.sawa...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:22 PM
To: Rouault, Jason (Cloud Services); Yuriy Taraday;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
In the example I gave below they are not members of any group and have no
..@rackspace.com>>, Yuriy Taraday
mailto:yorik@gmail.com>>,
"openstack@lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>"
mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>>
Subject: RE: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
A user can specify a tenantID
Jason (Cloud Services)"
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:18:44 +
To: Ziad Sawalha , Yuriy Taraday
, "openstack@lists.launchpad.net"
Subject: RE: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
If a user is bound to their default tenant, why wouldn't any role
assignments for tha
9 PM
To: Yuriy Taraday;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
Our goal is to support Nova use cases right now. You can provide access to
multiple tenants using a role assignment (assigning a user a role on a speci
lf Of Ziad Sawalha
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:09 PM
To: Yuriy Taraday; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
Our goal is to support Nova use cases right now. You can provide access to
multiple tenants using a role assignment (assigning a u
gt;>
Subject: [Openstack] Keystone tenants vs. Nova projects
Currently Keystone model assumes that user is bound to exactly one tenant. It
conflicts with the fact that in Nova user can have access to several projects.
Which way will it be?
Kind regards, Yuriy.
_
Currently Keystone model assumes that user is bound to exactly one tenant.
It conflicts with the fact that in Nova user can have access to several
projects.
Which way will it be?
Kind regards, Yuriy.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Pos
20 matches
Mail list logo
