Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division
Are you close to adding the stub modules for the X509 parsing and barbicn integration etc. On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote: Hi Doug, I agree with Brandon, since there is no flavors framework yet, each driver not supporting TLS is in charge of throwing the unsupported exception. The driver can do it once getting a listener with TERMINATED-HTTPS protocol. Evg -Original Message- From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:09 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] FW: [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division @Evgeny: Did you intend on adding another patchset in the reviews I've been working on? If so I don't really see any changes, so if they're are some changes you needed in there let me know. @Doug: I think if the drivers see the TERMINATED_HTTPS protocol then they can throw an exception. I don't think a driver interface change is needed. Thanks, Brandon On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 17:02 +, Doug Wiegley wrote: Do we want any driver interface changes for this? At one level, with the current interface, conforming drivers could just reference listener.sni_containers, with no changes. But, do we want something in place so that the API can return an unsupported error for non-TLS v2 drivers? Or must all v2 drivers support TLS? doug On 7/23/14, 10:54 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote: My code is here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109035/1 -Original Message- From: Evgeny Fedoruk Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:54 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Hi Carlos, As I understand you are working on common module for Barbican interactions. I will commit my code later today and I will appreciate if you and anybody else who is interested will review this change. There is one specific spot for the common Barbican interactions module API integration. After the IRC meeting tomorrow, we can discuss the work items and decide who is interested/available to do them. Does it make sense? Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:15 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Do you have any idea as to how we can split up the work? On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote: Hi, I'm working on TLS integration with loadbalancer v2 extension and db. Basing on Brandon's patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105609 , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/ , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105610/ I will abandon previous 2 patches for TLS which are https://review.openstack.org/#/c/74031/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102837/ Managing to submit my change later today. It will include lbaas extension v2 modification, lbaas db v2 modifications, alembic migration for schema changes and new tests in unit testing for lbaas db v2. Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:54 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Since it looks like the TLS blueprint was approved I''m sure were all eager to start coded so how should we divide up work on the source code. I have Pull requests in pyopenssl https://github.com/pyca/pyopenssl/pull/143;. and a few one liners in pica/cryptography to expose the needed low-level that I'm hoping will be added pretty soon to that PR 143 test's can pass. Incase it doesn't we will fall back to using the pyasn1_modules as it already also has a means to fetch what we want at a lower level. I'm just hoping that we can split the work up so that we can collaborate together on this with out over serializing the work were people become dependent on waiting for some one else to complete their work or worse one person ending up doing all the work. Carlos D. Garza ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division
Hi, I'm working on TLS integration with loadbalancer v2 extension and db. Basing on Brandon's patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105609 , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/ , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105610/ I will abandon previous 2 patches for TLS which are https://review.openstack.org/#/c/74031/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102837/ Managing to submit my change later today. It will include lbaas extension v2 modification, lbaas db v2 modifications, alembic migration for schema changes and new tests in unit testing for lbaas db v2. Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:54 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Since it looks like the TLS blueprint was approved I''m sure were all eager to start coded so how should we divide up work on the source code. I have Pull requests in pyopenssl https://github.com/pyca/pyopenssl/pull/143;. and a few one liners in pica/cryptography to expose the needed low-level that I'm hoping will be added pretty soon to that PR 143 test's can pass. Incase it doesn't we will fall back to using the pyasn1_modules as it already also has a means to fetch what we want at a lower level. I'm just hoping that we can split the work up so that we can collaborate together on this with out over serializing the work were people become dependent on waiting for some one else to complete their work or worse one person ending up doing all the work. Carlos D. Garza ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division
Do you have any idea as to how we can split up the work? On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote: Hi, I'm working on TLS integration with loadbalancer v2 extension and db. Basing on Brandon's patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105609 , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/ , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105610/ I will abandon previous 2 patches for TLS which are https://review.openstack.org/#/c/74031/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102837/ Managing to submit my change later today. It will include lbaas extension v2 modification, lbaas db v2 modifications, alembic migration for schema changes and new tests in unit testing for lbaas db v2. Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:54 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Since it looks like the TLS blueprint was approved I''m sure were all eager to start coded so how should we divide up work on the source code. I have Pull requests in pyopenssl https://github.com/pyca/pyopenssl/pull/143;. and a few one liners in pica/cryptography to expose the needed low-level that I'm hoping will be added pretty soon to that PR 143 test's can pass. Incase it doesn't we will fall back to using the pyasn1_modules as it already also has a means to fetch what we want at a lower level. I'm just hoping that we can split the work up so that we can collaborate together on this with out over serializing the work were people become dependent on waiting for some one else to complete their work or worse one person ending up doing all the work. Carlos D. Garza ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division
Hi Carlos, As I understand you are working on common module for Barbican interactions. I will commit my code later today and I will appreciate if you and anybody else who is interested will review this change. There is one specific spot for the common Barbican interactions module API integration. After the IRC meeting tomorrow, we can discuss the work items and decide who is interested/available to do them. Does it make sense? Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:15 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Do you have any idea as to how we can split up the work? On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote: Hi, I'm working on TLS integration with loadbalancer v2 extension and db. Basing on Brandon's patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105609 , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/ , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105610/ I will abandon previous 2 patches for TLS which are https://review.openstack.org/#/c/74031/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102837/ Managing to submit my change later today. It will include lbaas extension v2 modification, lbaas db v2 modifications, alembic migration for schema changes and new tests in unit testing for lbaas db v2. Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:54 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Since it looks like the TLS blueprint was approved I''m sure were all eager to start coded so how should we divide up work on the source code. I have Pull requests in pyopenssl https://github.com/pyca/pyopenssl/pull/143;. and a few one liners in pica/cryptography to expose the needed low-level that I'm hoping will be added pretty soon to that PR 143 test's can pass. Incase it doesn't we will fall back to using the pyasn1_modules as it already also has a means to fetch what we want at a lower level. I'm just hoping that we can split the work up so that we can collaborate together on this with out over serializing the work were people become dependent on waiting for some one else to complete their work or worse one person ending up doing all the work. Carlos D. Garza ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division
Yes we can discuss this during the meeting as well. On Jul 23, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote: Hi Carlos, As I understand you are working on common module for Barbican interactions. I will commit my code later today and I will appreciate if you and anybody else who is interested will review this change. There is one specific spot for the common Barbican interactions module API integration. After the IRC meeting tomorrow, we can discuss the work items and decide who is interested/available to do them. Does it make sense? Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:15 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Do you have any idea as to how we can split up the work? On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Evgeny Fedoruk evge...@radware.com wrote: Hi, I'm working on TLS integration with loadbalancer v2 extension and db. Basing on Brandon's patches https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105609 , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105331/ , https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105610/ I will abandon previous 2 patches for TLS which are https://review.openstack.org/#/c/74031/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102837/ Managing to submit my change later today. It will include lbaas extension v2 modification, lbaas db v2 modifications, alembic migration for schema changes and new tests in unit testing for lbaas db v2. Thanks, Evg -Original Message- From: Carlos Garza [mailto:carlos.ga...@rackspace.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:54 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division Since it looks like the TLS blueprint was approved I''m sure were all eager to start coded so how should we divide up work on the source code. I have Pull requests in pyopenssl https://github.com/pyca/pyopenssl/pull/143;. and a few one liners in pica/cryptography to expose the needed low-level that I'm hoping will be added pretty soon to that PR 143 test's can pass. Incase it doesn't we will fall back to using the pyasn1_modules as it already also has a means to fetch what we want at a lower level. I'm just hoping that we can split the work up so that we can collaborate together on this with out over serializing the work were people become dependent on waiting for some one else to complete their work or worse one person ending up doing all the work. Carlos D. Garza ___ 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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] TLS capability - work division
Since it looks like the TLS blueprint was approved I''m sure were all eager to start coded so how should we divide up work on the source code. I have Pull requests in pyopenssl https://github.com/pyca/pyopenssl/pull/143;. and a few one liners in pica/cryptography to expose the needed low-level that I'm hoping will be added pretty soon to that PR 143 test's can pass. Incase it doesn't we will fall back to using the pyasn1_modules as it already also has a means to fetch what we want at a lower level. I'm just hoping that we can split the work up so that we can collaborate together on this with out over serializing the work were people become dependent on waiting for some one else to complete their work or worse one person ending up doing all the work. Carlos D. Garza ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
