It would be great to see this land in Kilo, I'll definitely be willing to review the code.
Steve Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com> wrote on 02/13/2015 04:19:15 PM: > From: Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com> > To: Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com>, "OpenStack Development > Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: 02/13/2015 04:24 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] SPFE: Authenticated > Encryption (AE) Tokens > > On February 13, 2015 at 11:51:10 AM, Lance Bragstad (lbrags...@gmail.com > ) wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm proposing the Authenticated Encryption (AE) Token specification >  as an SPFE. AE tokens increases scalability of Keystone by > removing token persistence. This provider has been discussed prior > to, and at the Paris summit . There is an implementation that is > currently up for review , that was built off a POC. Based on the > POC, there has been some performance analysis done with respect to > the token formats available in Keystone (UUID, PKI, PKIZ, AE) . > > The Keystone team spent some time discussing limitations of the > current POC implementation at the mid-cycle. One case that still > needs to be addressed (and is currently being worked), is federated > tokens. When requesting unscoped federated tokens, the token > contains unbound groups which would need to be carried in the token. > This case can be handled by AE tokens but it would be possible for > an unscoped federated AE token to exceed an acceptable AE token > length (i.e. < 255 characters). Long story short, a federation > migration could be used to ensure federated AE tokens never exceed a > certain length. > > Feel free to leave your comments on the AE Token spec. > > Thanks! > > Lance > >  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130050/ >  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-keystone-authorization >  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145317/ >  http://dolphm.com/benchmarking-openstack-keystone-token-formats/ > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > I am for granting this exception as long as it?s clear that the > following is clear/true: > * All current use-cases for tokens (including federation) will be > supported by the new token provider. > * The federation tokens being possibly over 255 characters can be > addressed in the future if they are not addressed here (a > ?federation migration? does not clearly state what is meant. > I am also ok with the AE token work being re-ordered ahead of the > provider cleanup to ensure it lands. Fixing the AE Token provider > along with PKI and UUID providers should be minimal extra work in the cleanup. > This addresses a very, very big issue within Keystone as scaling > scaling up happens. There has been demand for solving token > persistence for ~3 cycles. The POC code makes this exception > possible to land within Kilo, whereas without the POC this would > almost assuredly need to be held until the L-Cycle. > > TL;DR, I am for the exception if the AE Tokens support 100% of the > current use-cases of tokens (UUID or PKI) today. > > ?Morgan > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev