Looks good to me in general, thanks for putting this together!

I think the ability to integrate with external RBAC systems like LDAP is
important (i.e. the Airflow DB should not be decoupled with the RBAC
database wherever possible).

I wouldn't be too worried about the permissions about refreshing DAGs, as
far as I know this functionality is no longer required with the new
webservers which reload state periodically, and will certainly be removed
when we have a better DAG consistency story.

I think it would also be good to think about this proposal/implementation
and how it applied in the API-driven world (e.g. when webserver hits APIs
like /clear on behalf of users instead of running commands against the
database directly).

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Will respond but im traveling at the moment. Give me a few days.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 12 Jun 2017, at 13:39, Chris Riccomini <criccom...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Checking in on this. We spent a good chunk of time thinking about this,
> and
> > want to move forward with it, but want to make sure we're all on the same
> > page.
> >
> > Max? Bolke? Dan? Jeremiah?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:49 PM, kalpesh dharwadkar <
> > kalpeshdharwad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> As you all know, currently Airflow doesn’t have a built-in Role Based
> >> Access Control(RBAC) capability.  It does provide very limited
> >> authorization capability by providing admin, data_profiler, and user
> roles.
> >> However, associating these roles to authenticated identities is not a
> >> simple effort.
> >>
> >> To address this issue, I have created a design proposal for building
> RBAC
> >> into Airflow and simplifying user access management via the Airflow UI.
> >>
> >> The design proposal is located at https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+RBAC+proposal
> >>
> >> Any comments/questions/feedback are much appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Kalpesh
> >>
>

Reply via email to