On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Andrew Laski wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> >> Andrew Laski wrote:
> >>> However, I have asked twice now on the review what the benefit of doing
> >>> this is and haven't received a response so I'll ask here. The proposal
> >>> would add additional latency to nearly every API operation in a service
> >>> and in return what do they get? Now that it's possible to register sane
> >>> policy defaults within a project most operators do not even need to
> >>> think about policy for projects that do that. And any policy changes
> >>> that are necessary are easily handled by a config management system.
> >>> I would expect to see a pretty significant benefit in exchange for
> >>> moving policy control out of Nova, and so far it's not clear to me what
> >>> that would be.
> >> One way to do this is to setup something like etc.d or zookeeper and
> >> have policy files be placed into certain 'keys' in there by keystone,
> >> then consuming projects would 'watch' those keys for being changed (and
> >> get notified when they are changed); the project would then reload its
> >> policy when the other service (keystone) write a new key/policy.
> >> https://coreos.com/etcd/docs/latest/api.html#waiting-for-a-change
> >> or
> >> https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/r3.4.5/zookeeperProgrammers.html#ch_zkWatches
> >> or (pretty sure consul has something similar),
> >> This is pretty standard stuff folks :-/ and it's how afaik things like
> >> https://github.com/skynetservices/skydns work (and more), and it would
> >> avoid that 'additional latency' (unless the other service is adjusting
> >> the policy key every millisecond, which seems sorta unreasonable).
> > Sure. Or have Keystone be a frontend for ansible/puppet/chef/.... What's
> > not clear to me in any of this is what's the benefit to having Keystone
> > as a fronted to policy configuration/changes, or be involved in any real
> > way with authorization decisions? What issue is being solved by getting
> > Keystone involved?
> I don't understand the puppet/chef connection, can u clarify.
> If I'm interpreting it right, I would assume it's the same reason that
> something like 'skydns' exists over etcd; to provide a useful API that
> focuses on the dns particulars that etcd will of course not have any
> idea about. So I guess the keystone API could(?)/would(?) then focus on
> policy particulars as its value-add.
> Maybe now I understand what u mean by puppet/chef, in that you are
> asking why isn't skydns (for example) just letting/invoking
> puppet/chef/ansible to distribute/send-out dns (dnsmasq) files? Is that
> your equivalent question?
I'm focused on Nova/Keystone/OpenStack here, I'm sure skydns has good
reasons for their technical choices and I'm in no place to question
I'm trying to understand the value-add that Keystone could provide here.
Policy configuration is fairly static so I'm not understanding the
desire to put an API on top of it. But perhaps I'm missing the use case
here which is why I've been asking.
My ansible/puppet/chef comparison was just that those are ways to
distribute static files and would work just as well as something built
on top of etcd/zookeeper. I'm not really concerned about how it's
implemented though. I'm just trying to understand if the desire is to
have Keystone handle this so that deployers don't need to work with
their configuration management system to configure policy files, or is
there something more here?
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)