I opened the PR: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4029
It is still work in progress, missing mainly tests, docu etc. I will continue to work on it tomorrow. But it shows the implementation. One of the things which came to my mind - the PR is currently using the HttpURLConnection class for forwarding the HTTP(S) calls to the leader (as was used by Kafka before). Configuring SSL - especially things like cipher suites is quite cumbersome there. What about using some more advanced HTTP client? Such as the Jetty client. It would mean additional dependencies, but we have already Jetty server, so the different might not be so big. What is your opinion? I don't know whether there is some general policy for this. Thanks & Regards Jakub On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz> wrote: > Hi Ewen, > > Thanks for your comments / questions. > > re 1) I was using the valuesWithPrefixOverride(...) method from > AbstractConfig class. That takes the overrides setting by setting. It > should not be hard to change the code to use only the overrides if one > value has changed. But I think that the broker is using the same for the > SSL configuration. So I guess the question is whether we want to keep thins > behave the same within Connect (e.g. with the key.converter / > value.converter) or with the broker configuration. I would be ultimately > fine with both, so if you want I can change it to the approach you > suggested. > > re 2) I think the dangerous thing is that we are mixing different purposes > for the same fields. The truststore is used for server authentication when > connecting to Kafka broker and for user authentication when used for the > REST API. The keystore is used for client authentication when connecting to > Kafka brokers but as server certificate for the REST API. It can work fine, > but it might be confusing and it is not obviously clear what are all the > functions of given truststore / keystore. And that might not be a good > thing for security related configuration. > > However because they have different roles, using the same truststore > configuration for both doesn't mean that every Kafka Connect user is > automatically able to connect also directly to Kafka broker. You can have > in the truststore several public keys - each for different purpose. > > I think the original KIP actually proposed to use always separate fields. > It was modified later after feedback from the discussion. I think that the > current way is good because it is most flexible. But I'm fine with > implementing it both ways. > > re 3) What I'm actually using right now is the default value of "null" > (although in the KIP it was actually empty - I added the null only now). > That makes it not required in ConfigDef. In the same time it makes it > possible for Kafka Connect that if the protocol is not specified, I can > define it based on the listeners field. Thanks to that, when the user has > only one listener specified in the "listeners" field he does not need to > specify the protocol. When I set the default value to HTTP, users will need > to change it if they want to use HTTPS for the communication which would > make it more complicated for the users. So I think my current version is > better. What do you think? > > re 4) Yeah, I was thinking about it as well. I changed the KIP. > > I will rebase the work I have done so far, finish it and open a WIP PR, so > that you can see the code as well. > > Thanks & regards > Jakub > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz> wrote: > >> I'm sorry guys, I'm a bit busy with something else this week. But I will >> get back to his till the end of the week. >> >> Thanks & Regards >> Jakub >> >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Nice feedback, Ewen. Thanks! >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava < >>> e...@confluent.io> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hey Jakub, >>> > > >>> > > Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Overall the proposal looks >>> good to >>> > > me, I just had a couple of questions. >>> > > >>> > > 1. For the configs/overrides, does this happen on a per-setting >>> basis or >>> > if >>> > > one override is included do we not use any of the original settings? >>> I >>> > > suspect that if you need to override one setting, it probably means >>> > you're >>> > > using an entirely different config and so the latter behavior seems >>> > better >>> > > to me. We've talked a bit about doing something similar for the >>> > > producer/consumer security settings as well so you don't have to >>> specify >>> > > security configs in 3 places in your worker config. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Not sure if you were referring to >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6387, but I just withdrew >>> that >>> > proposal (and the corresponding KIP-246) because behavior with existing >>> > configurations was not backward compatible, so existing configs might >>> have >>> > very different behavior after the "inheritance" was implemented. >>> > >>> > But regardless, I do think that in this case if you have to override >>> one of >>> > the settings you probably need to override multiple. So I'd be in >>> favor of >>> > requiring all configs to be specified in the overridden `listeners.*` >>> > properties. >>> > >>> >>> Yeah, a related case i was thinking of is how key.converter and >>> value.converter overrides work in Connectors. It's not exactly the same, >>> but in that case, if you include the key.converter setting in the >>> connector >>> config, then nothing with key.converter prefix from the worker is passed >>> along. Just might be worth clarifying the all-or-nothing behavior. Also >>> how >>> we apply it in this case (e.g. is there one key setting we can use that, >>> if >>> it appears, then we do not inherit any security configs from the worker?) >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > 2. For using default values from the worker config, I am wondering >>> how >>> > > convinced we are that it will be common for them to be the same? I >>> really >>> > > don't have enough experience w/ these setups to know, so just a >>> question >>> > > here. I think the other thing to take into account here is that even >>> > though >>> > > we're not dealing with authorization in this KIP, we will eventually >>> want >>> > > it for these APIs. Would we expect to be using the same principal for >>> > Kafka >>> > > and the Connect REST API? In a case where a company has a Connect >>> cluster >>> > > that, e.g., an ops team manages and they are the only ones that are >>> > > supposed to make changes, that would make sense to me. But for a >>> setup >>> > > where some dev team is allowed to use the REST API to create new >>> > connectors >>> > > but the cluster is managed by an ops team, I would think the Kafka >>> > > credentials would be different. I'm not sure how frequent each case >>> would >>> > > be, so I'm a bit unsure about the default of using the worker >>> security >>> > > configs by default. Thoughts? >>> > > >>> > > 3. We should probably specify the default in the table for >>> > > rest.advertised.security.protocol because in ConfigDef if you don't >>> > > specify >>> > > a default value it becomes a required config. The HTTP default will >>> > > probably need to be in there anyway. >>> > > >>> > > 4. Do we want to list the existing settings as deprecated and just >>> move >>> > to >>> > > using listeners for consistency? We don't need to remove them anytime >>> > soon, >>> > > but given that the broker is doing the same, maybe we should just do >>> that >>> > > in this KIP? >>> > > >>> > >>> > Marking them as deprecated in this KIP sounds good to me. >>> > >>> > > >>> > > I think these are mostly small details, overall it looks like a good >>> > plan! >>> > > >>> > >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > Randall >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Ewen >>> > > >>> > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > There has been no discussion since my last update week ago. Unless >>> > > someone >>> > > > has some further comments in the next 48 hours, I will start the >>> voting >>> > > for >>> > > > this KIP. >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks & Regards >>> > > > Jakub >>> > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > Ok, so I updated the KIP according to what we discussed. Please >>> have >>> > a >>> > > > > look at the updates. Two points I'm not 100% sure about: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 1) Should we mark the rest.host.name and rest.port options as >>> > > > deprecated? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 2) I needed to also address the advertised hostname / port. With >>> > > multiple >>> > > > > listeners it is not clear anymore which one should be used. I >>> saw as >>> > > one >>> > > > > option to add advertised.listeners option and some modified >>> version >>> > of >>> > > > > inter.broker.listener.name option to follow what is done in >>> Kafka >>> > > > > brokers. But for the Connect REST interface, we do not advertise >>> the >>> > > > > address to the clients like in Kafka broker. So we only need to >>> tell >>> > > > other >>> > > > > workers how to connect - and for that we need only one advertised >>> > > > address. >>> > > > > So I decided to reuse the existing rest.advertised.host.name and >>> > > > > rest.advertised.port options and add additional option >>> > > > > rest.advertised.security.protocol to specify whether HTTP or >>> HTTPS >>> > > > should >>> > > > > be used. Does this make sense to you? DO you think this is the >>> right >>> > > > > approach? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks & Regards >>> > > > > Jakub >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com >>> > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> The broker's configuration options are "listeners" (plural) and >>> > > > >> "listeners.security.protocol.map". I agree that following the >>> > pattern >>> > > > set >>> > > > >> by the broker is better, so these are really good ideas. >>> However, at >>> > > > this >>> > > > >> point I don't see a need for the "listeners.security.procotol.m >>> ap", >>> > > > which >>> > > > >> for the broker must be set if the listener name is not a >>> security >>> > > > >> protocol. >>> > > > >> Can we not simply just allow "HTTP" and "HTTPS" as the names of >>> the >>> > > > >> listeners (rather than the broker's "PLAINTEXT", "SSL", etc.)? >>> If >>> > so, >>> > > > then >>> > > > >> for example "listeners" might be set to "http://myhost:8081, >>> > > > >> https://myhost:80";, which seems to work out nicely without >>> needing >>> > > > >> listener >>> > > > >> names other than security protocols. >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> I also like using the worker's SSL and SASL security configs by >>> > > default >>> > > > if >>> > > > >> "https" is included in the listener, but allowing the >>> overriding of >>> > > this >>> > > > >> via other additional properties. Here, I'm not a big fan of >>> > > > >> "listeners.name.https.*" prefix, which I think is pretty >>> verbose, >>> > but >>> > > I >>> > > > >> could see "listener.https.*" as a prefix. This allows us to add >>> > other >>> > > > >> security protocols at some point, if that ever becomes >>> necessary. >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> +1 for continuing down this road. Nice work. >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> > +1 to this proposal. >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Jakub Scholz < >>> ja...@scholz.cz> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > I was having some more thoughts about it. We can simply take >>> > over >>> > > > what >>> > > > >> > > Kafka broker implements for the listeners: >>> > > > >> > > - We can take over the "listener" and " >>> > > > listener.security.protocol.ma >>> > > > >> p" >>> > > > >> > > options to define multiple REST listeners and the security >>> > > protocol >>> > > > >> they >>> > > > >> > > should use >>> > > > >> > > - The HTTPS interface will by default use the default >>> > > configuration >>> > > > >> > options >>> > > > >> > > ("ssl.keystore.localtion" etc.). But if desired, the values >>> can >>> > be >>> > > > >> > > overridden for given listener (again, as in Kafka broker " >>> > > > >> listener.name >>> > > > >> > > .<LISTENER_NAME>.ssl.keystore.location") >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > This should address both issues raised. But before I >>> incorporate >>> > > it >>> > > > >> into >>> > > > >> > > the KIP, I would love to get some feedback if this sounds >>> OK. >>> > > Please >>> > > > >> let >>> > > > >> > me >>> > > > >> > > know what do you think ... >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > Jakub >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Jakub Scholz < >>> ja...@scholz.cz >>> > > >>> > > > >> wrote: >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > I agree, adding both HTTP and HTTPS is not complicated. I >>> just >>> > > > >> didn't >>> > > > >> > saw >>> > > > >> > > > the use case for it. But I can add it. Would you add just >>> > > support >>> > > > >> for a >>> > > > >> > > > single HTTP and single HTTPS interface? Or do you see some >>> > value >>> > > > >> even >>> > > > >> > in >>> > > > >> > > > allowing more than 2 interfaces (for example one HTTP and >>> two >>> > > > HTTPS >>> > > > >> > with >>> > > > >> > > > different configuration)? It could be done similarly to >>> how >>> > the >>> > > > >> Kafka >>> > > > >> > > > broker does it through the "listener" configuration >>> parameter >>> > > with >>> > > > >> > comma >>> > > > >> > > > separated list. What do you think? >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > As for the "rest" prefix - if we remove it, some of the >>> same >>> > > > >> > > configuration >>> > > > >> > > > options are already used today as the option for >>> connecting >>> > from >>> > > > >> Kafka >>> > > > >> > > > Connect to Kafka broker. So I'm not sure we should mix >>> them. I >>> > > can >>> > > > >> > > > definitely imagine some cases where the client SSL >>> > configuration >>> > > > >> will >>> > > > >> > not >>> > > > >> > > > be the same as the REST HTTPS configuration. That is why I >>> > added >>> > > > the >>> > > > >> > > > prefix. If we remove the prefix, how would you deal with >>> this? >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Randall Hauch < >>> > > rha...@gmail.com> >>> > > > >> > wrote: >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >> Also, do we need these properties to be preceded with >>> `rest`? >>> > > I'd >>> > > > >> > argue >>> > > > >> > > >> that we're just configuring the worker's SSL >>> information, and >>> > > > that >>> > > > >> the >>> > > > >> > > >> REST >>> > > > >> > > >> API would just use that. If we added another non-REST >>> API, >>> > we'd >>> > > > >> want >>> > > > >> > to >>> > > > >> > > >> use >>> > > > >> > > >> the same security configuration. >>> > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > >> > > >> It's not that complicated in Jetty to support both >>> "http" and >>> > > > >> "https" >>> > > > >> > > >> simultaneously, so IMO we should add that from the >>> beginning. >>> > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Randall Hauch < >>> > > rha...@gmail.com >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > wrote: >>> > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > >> > > >> > It'd be useful to specify the default values for the >>> > > > >> configuration >>> > > > >> > > >> > properties. >>> > > > >> > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Jakub Scholz < >>> > > ja...@scholz.cz >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > wrote: >>> > > > >> > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> >> FYI: Based on Ewen's suggestion from the related >>> JIRA, I >>> > > > added a >>> > > > >> > > >> >> clarification to the KIP that it doesn't do anything >>> > around >>> > > > >> > > >> authorization >>> > > > >> > > >> >> / >>> > > > >> > > >> >> ACLs. While authorization / ACLs would be for sure >>> > valuable >>> > > > >> > feature I >>> > > > >> > > >> >> would >>> > > > >> > > >> >> prefer to leave it for different KIP. >>> > > > >> > > >> >> >>> > > > >> > > >> >> Jakub >>> > > > >> > > >> >> >>> > > > >> > > >> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Jakub Scholz < >>> > > ja...@scholz.cz >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > wrote: >>> > > > >> > > >> >> >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > Hi, >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > I would like to start a discussion about KIP-208: >>> Add >>> > SSL >>> > > > >> support >>> > > > >> > > to >>> > > > >> > > >> >> Kafka >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > Connect REST interface (https://cwiki.apache.org/ >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-2 >>> 08%3A+Add+SSL+support+to+ >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > Kafka+Connect+REST+interface). >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > I think this would be useful feature to improve the >>> > > security >>> > > > >> of >>> > > > >> > > Kafka >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > Connect. >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > Thanks & Regards >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > Jakub >>> > > > >> > > >> >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> >> >>> > > > >> > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > >> >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
