Sorry, I am late to the party. Holding the shadow copy in the backend is a fine solution.
Also, if containers are immutable can they be deleted at all? Can we make a requirement that a user can't delete a container in Barbican? German -----Original Message----- From: Eichberger, German Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:32 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS support RST document on Gerrit Hi, I think the previous solution is easier for a user to understand. The referenced container got tampered/deleted we throw an error - but keep existing load balancers intact. With the shadow container we get additional complexity and the user might be confused where the values are coming from. German -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:18 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS support RST document on Gerrit See adams message re: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Barbican Neutron LBaaS Integration Ideas. He's advocating keeping a shadow copy of the private key that is owned by the LBaaS service so that incase a key is tampered with during an LB update migration etc we can still check with the shadow backup and compare it to the user owned TLS container in case its not their it can be used. On Jun 10, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Samuel Bercovici <samu...@radware.com> wrote: > To elaborate on the case where containers get deleted while LBaaS still > references it. > We think that the following approach will do: > * The end user can delete a container and leave a "dangling" > reference in LBaaS. > * It would be nice to allow adding meta data on the container so that > the user will be aware which listeners use this container. This is optional. > It can also be optional for LBaaS to implement adding the listeners ID > automatically into this metadata just for information. > * In LBaaS, if an update happens which requires to pull the container > from Barbican and if the ID references a non-existing container, the update > will fail and will indicate that the reference certificate does not exists > any more. This validation could be implemented on the LBaaS API itself as > well as also by the driver who will actually need the container. > > Regards, > -Sam. > > > From: Evgeny Fedoruk > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:13 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS support RST document > on Gerrit > > Hi All, > > Carlos, Vivek, German, thanks for reviewing the RST doc. > There are some issues I want to pinpoint final decision on them here, in ML, > before writing it down in the doc. > Other issues will be commented on the document itself. > > 1. Support/No support in JUNO > Referring to summit's etherpad > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-lbaas-ssl-l7, > a. SNI certificates list was decided to be supported. Was decision made > not to support it? > Single certificate with multiple domains can only partly address the > need for SNI, still, different applications on back-end will need different > certificates. > b. Back-end re-encryption was decided to be supported. Was decision made > not to support it? > c. With front-end client authentication and back-end server > authentication not supported, > Should certificate chains be supported? > 2. Barbican TLS containers > a. TLS containers are immutable. > b. TLS container is allowed to be deleted, always. > i. Even > when it is used by LBaaS VIP listener (or other service). > ii. Meta > data on TLS container will help tenant to understand that container is in use > by LBaaS service/VIP listener > iii. If > every VIP listener will "register" itself in meta-data while retrieving > container, how that "registration" will be removed when VIP listener stops > using the certificate? > > Please comment on these points and review the document on gerrit > (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640) > I will update the document with decisions on above topics. > > Thank you! > Evgeny > > > From: Evgeny Fedoruk > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 2:54 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS support RST document on > Gerrit > > Hi All, > > A Spec. RST document for LBaaS TLS support was added to Gerrit for > review > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640 > > You are welcome to start commenting it for any open discussions. > I tried to address each aspect being discussed, please add comments about > missing things. > > Thanks, > Evgeny > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
