On 11/29/2013 10:06 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey
Anyone got an update on this?
The keystone blueprint for KDS was marked approved on Tuesday:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/key-distribution-server
and a new keystone review was added on Sunday, but it must be a draft
I also don't like that the discussions suggested that because it would be
hard
to get Barbican incubated/integrated it should not be used. That is just
crazy
talk. TripleO merged with Tuskar because Tuskar is part of deployment.
We are completing our incubation request for Barbican right now.
Excerpts from Adam Young's message of 2013-11-25 20:25:50 -0800:
Back in the Day, Barbican was just one Service of Cloud Keep. While I
would say that KDS belongs in the Cloud Keep, it is not the same as, and
should not be deployed with Barbican. Is it possible to keep them as
separate
Hey
Anyone got an update on this?
The keystone blueprint for KDS was marked approved on Tuesday:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/key-distribution-server
and a new keystone review was added on Sunday, but it must be a draft
since I can't access it:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
Back in the Day, Barbican was just one Service of Cloud Keep. While I
would say that KDS belongs in the Cloud Keep, it is not the same as, and
should not be deployed with Barbican. Is it possible to keep them as
separate
: Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Oslo] Future of Key Distribution
Server, Trusted Messaging
Adam Young wrote:
Keep KDS configuration separate from the Keystone configuration: the
fact that they both point to the same host and port is temporary. In
fact, we should probably spin up a separate
...@openstack.org]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:17 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Oslo] Future of Key Distribution
Server, Trusted Messaging
Adam Young wrote:
Keep KDS configuration separate from the Keystone configuration: the
fact
I hear a concerted effort to get this bootstrapped in Keystone. We can do
this if it is the voice of the majority.
If we do:
Keep KDS configuration separate from the Keystone configuration: the fact
that they both point to the same host and port is temporary. In fact, we
should probably
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Morgan Fainberg m...@metacloud.com wrote:
The other concern is the library interfacing with KDS (I would assume this
goes into keystoneclient? At least for the time being).
I would rather see the client get its own repo, too. We still need to do
that with the
On 11/22/2013 01:49 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 11:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
I'm not thrilled about the prospect of this going into a new project for
multiple reasons.
- Given the priority and how long this has been dragging out, having
Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
I'm not thrilled about the prospect of this going into a new project for
multiple reasons.
- Given the priority and how long this has been dragging out, having to
wait for a new project to make its way into OpenStack is not very appealing.
- A new project
On 11/21/13, 7:51 PM, Jamie Lennox jamielen...@redhat.com wrote:
So i've a feeling that this was proposed and dismissed once before. I
don't remember why.
So my concern with barbican is that i'm under the impression that
barbican was going to be an 'overcloud' service. That's a really bad way
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 11:04 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
I'm not thrilled about the prospect of this going into a new project for
multiple reasons.
- Given the priority and how long this has been dragging out, having to
wait for a new project to make its
On 11/21/2013 01:55 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
Greetings,
I'd like to check in on the status of this API addition:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40692/
The last comment is:
propose against stackforge as discussed at summit?
Yes, it was discussed in a small group, and not
The Barbican team has been taking a look at the KDS feature and the
proposed patch and I think this may be better placed in Barbican rather
than Keystone. The patch, from what I can tell, seems to require that a
service account create use a key under its own tenant. In this use case,
Barbican can
On 11/21/2013 03:08 PM, Jarret Raim wrote:
The Barbican team has been taking a look at the KDS feature and the
proposed patch and I think this may be better placed in Barbican rather
than Keystone. The patch, from what I can tell, seems to require that a
service account create use a key under
Greetings,
I'd like to check in on the status of this API addition:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40692/
The last comment is:
propose against stackforge as discussed at summit?
I don't see a session about this and from a quick look, don't see notes
related to it in other session
17 matches
Mail list logo
