Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
Hello, For what it is worth I was toying around with the possibility to extend the federation mapping mechanism to be used with keystone's external auth plugin. I believe this would allow easy, immediate and generic support of other federation protocols through apache mods without the need to write specific auth plugins unless it is needed. I've pushed a very early PoC on this and given some basic guidelines to make it work with OpenID here: * PoC: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92079/ * Blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/external-auth-federation-mapping I'd be happy to get some feedback and push work forward on it if it can be of any use to the project. Let me know what you think ! Regards Matthieu Huin m...@enovance.com - Original Message - From: David Chadwick d.w.chadw...@kent.ac.uk To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:59:48 PM Subject: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to allow for: i) the inclusion of more federation protocols such as OpenID and OpenID Connect via Apache plugins ii) federating together multiple Keystone installations iii) the inclusion of federation protocols directly into Keystone where good Apache plugins dont yet exist e.g. IETF ABFAB The Proposed Design (1) in the slide show is the simplest change to make, in which the Authn module has different plugins for different federation protocols, whether via Apache or not. The Proposed Design (2) is cleaner since the plugins are directly into Keystone and not via the Authn module, but it requires more re-engineering work, and it was questioned in Atlanta whether that effort exists or not. Kent therefore proposes that we go with Proposed Design (1). Kent will provide drafts of the revised APIs and the re-engineered code for inspection and approval by the group, if the group agrees to go with this revised design. If you have any questions about the proposed re-design, please don't hesitate to ask regards David and Kristy ___ 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] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
I agree that there is room for improvement on the Federation design within Keystone. I would like to re-iterate what Adam said that we are already seeing efforts to fully integrate further protocol support (OpenID Connect, etc) within the current system. Lets be sure that whatever redesign work is proposed and accepted takes into account the current stakeholders (that are really using Federation) and ensure full backwards compatibility. I firmly believe we can work within the Apache module framework for Juno. Moving beyond Juno we may need to start implementing the more native modules (proposal #2). Lets be sure whatever redesign work we perform this cycle doesn’t lock us exclusively into one path or another. It shouldn’t be too hard to continue making incremental improvements (agile methodology) and keeping the stakeholders engaged. David and Kristy, the slides and summit session are a great starting place for this work. Now we need to get the proposal drafted up in the new Keystone-Specs repository ( https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/keystone-specs ) so we can keep this conversation on track. Having the specification clearly outlined and targeted will help us address any concerns with the proposal/redesign as we move into implementation. Cheers, Morgan — Morgan Fainberg From: Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: May 28, 2014 at 09:24:26 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation On 05/28/2014 11:59 AM, David Chadwick wrote: Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to allow for: i) the inclusion of more federation protocols such as OpenID and OpenID Connect via Apache plugins These are underway: Steve Mar just posted review for OpenID connect. ii) federating together multiple Keystone installations I think Keystone should be dealt with separately. Keystone is not a good stand-alone authentication mechanism. iii) the inclusion of federation protocols directly into Keystone where good Apache plugins dont yet exist e.g. IETF ABFAB I though this was mostly pulling together other protocols such as Radius? http://freeradius.org/mod_auth_radius/ The Proposed Design (1) in the slide show is the simplest change to make, in which the Authn module has different plugins for different federation protocols, whether via Apache or not. I'd like to avoid doing non-HTTPD modules for as long as possible. The Proposed Design (2) is cleaner since the plugins are directly into Keystone and not via the Authn module, but it requires more re-engineering work, and it was questioned in Atlanta whether that effort exists or not. The method parameter is all that is going to vary for most of the Auth mechanisms. X509 and Kerberos both require special set up of the HTTP connection to work, which means client and server sides need to be in sync: SAML, OpenID and the rest have no such requirements. Kent therefore proposes that we go with Proposed Design (1). Kent will provide drafts of the revised APIs and the re-engineered code for inspection and approval by the group, if the group agrees to go with this revised design. If you have any questions about the proposed re-design, please don't hesitate to ask regards David and Kristy ___ 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] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
+1! Excellent summary and analysis Morgan! --Brad Brad Topol, Ph.D. IBM Distinguished Engineer OpenStack (919) 543-0646 Internet: bto...@us.ibm.com Assistant: Kendra Witherspoon (919) 254-0680 From: Morgan Fainberg morgan.fainb...@gmail.com To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date: 05/29/2014 01:07 PM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation I agree that there is room for improvement on the Federation design within Keystone. I would like to re-iterate what Adam said that we are already seeing efforts to fully integrate further protocol support (OpenID Connect, etc) within the current system. Lets be sure that whatever redesign work is proposed and accepted takes into account the current stakeholders (that are really using Federation) and ensure full backwards compatibility. I firmly believe we can work within the Apache module framework for Juno. Moving beyond Juno we may need to start implementing the more native modules (proposal #2). Lets be sure whatever redesign work we perform this cycle doesn’t lock us exclusively into one path or another. It shouldn’t be too hard to continue making incremental improvements (agile methodology) and keeping the stakeholders engaged. David and Kristy, the slides and summit session are a great starting place for this work. Now we need to get the proposal drafted up in the new Keystone-Specs repository ( https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/keystone-specs ) so we can keep this conversation on track. Having the specification clearly outlined and targeted will help us address any concerns with the proposal/redesign as we move into implementation. Cheers, Morgan — Morgan Fainberg From: Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: May 28, 2014 at 09:24:26 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation On 05/28/2014 11:59 AM, David Chadwick wrote: Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to allow for: i) the inclusion of more federation protocols such as OpenID and OpenID Connect via Apache plugins These are underway: Steve Mar just posted review for OpenID connect. ii) federating together multiple Keystone installations I think Keystone should be dealt with separately. Keystone is not a good stand-alone authentication mechanism. iii) the inclusion of federation protocols directly into Keystone where good Apache plugins dont yet exist e.g. IETF ABFAB I though this was mostly pulling together other protocols such as Radius? http://freeradius.org/mod_auth_radius/ The Proposed Design (1) in the slide show is the simplest change to make, in which the Authn module has different plugins for different federation protocols, whether via Apache or not. I'd like to avoid doing non-HTTPD modules for as long as possible. The Proposed Design (2) is cleaner since the plugins are directly into Keystone and not via the Authn module, but it requires more re-engineering work, and it was questioned in Atlanta whether that effort exists or not. The method parameter is all that is going to vary for most of the Auth mechanisms. X509 and Kerberos both require special set up of the HTTP connection to work, which means client and server sides need to be in sync: SAML, OpenID and the rest have no such requirements. Kent therefore proposes that we go with Proposed Design (1). Kent will provide drafts of the revised APIs and the re-engineered code for inspection and approval by the group, if the group agrees to go with this revised design. If you have any questions about the proposed re-design, please don't hesitate to ask regards David and Kristy ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
A further vote to maintain compatibility . One of the key parts to a good federation design is to be using it in the field and encountering real life problems. Production sites expect stability of interfaces and functions. If this cannot be reasonably ensured, the federation function deployment scope will be very limited and remain lightly used. Without usage, the real end user functional gaps and additional requirements cannot be determined. Tim From: Brad Topol [mailto:bto...@us.ibm.com] Sent: 29 May 2014 19:31 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation +1! Excellent summary and analysis Morgan! --Brad Brad Topol, Ph.D. IBM Distinguished Engineer OpenStack (919) 543-0646 Internet: bto...@us.ibm.commailto:bto...@us.ibm.com Assistant: Kendra Witherspoon (919) 254-0680 From:Morgan Fainberg morgan.fainb...@gmail.commailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com To:OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date:05/29/2014 01:07 PM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation I agree that there is room for improvement on the Federation design within Keystone. I would like to re-iterate what Adam said that we are already seeing efforts to fully integrate further protocol support (OpenID Connect, etc) within the current system. Lets be sure that whatever redesign work is proposed and accepted takes into account the current stakeholders (that are really using Federation) and ensure full backwards compatibility. I firmly believe we can work within the Apache module framework for Juno. Moving beyond Juno we may need to start implementing the more native modules (proposal #2). Lets be sure whatever redesign work we perform this cycle doesn’t lock us exclusively into one path or another. It shouldn’t be too hard to continue making incremental improvements (agile methodology) and keeping the stakeholders engaged. David and Kristy, the slides and summit session are a great starting place for this work. Now we need to get the proposal drafted up in the new Keystone-Specs repository ( https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/keystone-specs ) so we can keep this conversation on track. Having the specification clearly outlined and targeted will help us address any concerns with the proposal/redesign as we move into implementation. Cheers, Morgan — Morgan Fainberg From: Adam Young ayo...@redhat.commailto:ayo...@redhat.com Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: May 28, 2014 at 09:24:26 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation On 05/28/2014 11:59 AM, David Chadwick wrote: Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to allow for: i) the inclusion of more federation protocols such as OpenID and OpenID Connect via Apache plugins These are underway: Steve Mar just posted review for OpenID connect. ii) federating together multiple Keystone installations I think Keystone should be dealt with separately. Keystone is not a good stand-alone authentication mechanism. iii) the inclusion of federation protocols directly into Keystone where good Apache plugins dont yet exist e.g. IETF ABFAB I though this was mostly pulling together other protocols such as Radius? http://freeradius.org/mod_auth_radius/ The Proposed Design (1) in the slide show is the simplest change to make, in which the Authn module has different plugins for different federation protocols, whether via Apache or not. I'd like to avoid doing non-HTTPD modules for as long as possible. The Proposed Design (2) is cleaner since the plugins are directly into Keystone and not via the Authn module, but it requires more re-engineering work, and it was questioned in Atlanta whether that effort exists or not. The method parameter is all that is going to vary for most of the Auth mechanisms. X509 and Kerberos both require special set up of the HTTP connection to work, which means client and server sides need to be in sync: SAML, OpenID and the rest have no such requirements. Kent therefore proposes that we go with Proposed Design (1). Kent will provide drafts of the revised APIs and the re-engineered
Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote: A further vote to maintain compatibility . One of the key parts to a good federation design is to be using it in the field and encountering real life problems. Production sites expect stability of interfaces and functions. If this cannot be reasonably ensured, the federation function deployment scope will be very limited and remain lightly used. Without usage, the real end user functional gaps and additional requirements cannot be determined. +1 Maintaining compatibility with OS-FEDERATION is not something we can compromise on: backwards compatibility should be guaranteed. If we made a terrible decision in the established groundwork that precludes solving a use case with sufficiently high demand (and I have not seen any evidence suggesting that to be the case), we'll have to build an alternative solution in parallel - not redesign OS-FEDERATION. Tim *From:* Brad Topol [mailto:bto...@us.ibm.com] *Sent:* 29 May 2014 19:31 *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation +1! Excellent summary and analysis Morgan! --Brad Brad Topol, Ph.D. IBM Distinguished Engineer OpenStack (919) 543-0646 Internet: bto...@us.ibm.com Assistant: Kendra Witherspoon (919) 254-0680 From:Morgan Fainberg morgan.fainb...@gmail.com To:OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, Date:05/29/2014 01:07 PM Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation -- I agree that there is room for improvement on the Federation design within Keystone. I would like to re-iterate what Adam said that we are already seeing efforts to fully integrate further protocol support (OpenID Connect, etc) within the current system. Lets be sure that whatever redesign work is proposed and accepted takes into account the current stakeholders (that are really using Federation) and ensure full backwards compatibility. I firmly believe we can work within the Apache module framework for Juno. Moving beyond Juno we may need to start implementing the more native modules (proposal #2). Lets be sure whatever redesign work we perform this cycle doesn’t lock us exclusively into one path or another. It shouldn’t be too hard to continue making incremental improvements (agile methodology) and keeping the stakeholders engaged. David and Kristy, the slides and summit session are a great starting place for this work. Now we need to get the proposal drafted up in the new Keystone-Specs repository ( https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/keystone-specs ) so we can keep this conversation on track. Having the specification clearly outlined and targeted will help us address any concerns with the proposal/redesign as we move into implementation. Cheers, Morgan *— Morgan Fainberg* From: Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Date: May 28, 2014 at 09:24:26 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation On 05/28/2014 11:59 AM, David Chadwick wrote: Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to allow for: i) the inclusion of more federation protocols such as OpenID and OpenID Connect via Apache plugins These are underway: Steve Mar just posted review for OpenID connect. ii) federating together multiple Keystone installations I think Keystone should be dealt with separately. Keystone is not a good stand-alone authentication mechanism. iii) the inclusion of federation protocols directly into Keystone where good Apache plugins dont yet exist e.g. IETF ABFAB I though this was mostly pulling together other protocols such as Radius? http://freeradius.org/mod_auth_radius/ The Proposed Design (1) in the slide show is the simplest change to make, in which the Authn module has different plugins for different federation protocols, whether via Apache or not. I'd like to avoid doing non-HTTPD modules for as long as possible. The Proposed Design (2) is cleaner since the plugins are directly into Keystone and not via the Authn module, but it requires more re-engineering work, and it was questioned in Atlanta whether that effort exists or not. The method parameter is all that is going to vary for most of the Auth
Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
On 05/28/2014 11:59 AM, David Chadwick wrote: Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to allow for: i) the inclusion of more federation protocols such as OpenID and OpenID Connect via Apache plugins These are underway: Steve Mar just posted review for OpenID connect. ii) federating together multiple Keystone installations I think Keystone should be dealt with separately. Keystone is not a good stand-alone authentication mechanism. iii) the inclusion of federation protocols directly into Keystone where good Apache plugins dont yet exist e.g. IETF ABFAB I though this was mostly pulling together other protocols such as Radius? http://freeradius.org/mod_auth_radius/ The Proposed Design (1) in the slide show is the simplest change to make, in which the Authn module has different plugins for different federation protocols, whether via Apache or not. I'd like to avoid doing non-HTTPD modules for as long as possible. The Proposed Design (2) is cleaner since the plugins are directly into Keystone and not via the Authn module, but it requires more re-engineering work, and it was questioned in Atlanta whether that effort exists or not. The method parameter is all that is going to vary for most of the Auth mechanisms. X509 and Kerberos both require special set up of the HTTP connection to work, which means client and server sides need to be in sync: SAML, OpenID and the rest have no such requirements. Kent therefore proposes that we go with Proposed Design (1). Kent will provide drafts of the revised APIs and the re-engineered code for inspection and approval by the group, if the group agrees to go with this revised design. If you have any questions about the proposed re-design, please don't hesitate to ask regards David and Kristy ___ 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] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
-Original Message- From: Adam Young [mailto:ayo...@redhat.com] Sent: 28 May 2014 18:23 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation On 05/28/2014 11:59 AM, David Chadwick wrote: Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to Getting some working clients for the existing implementation would also be very desirable :-) I would hope that any re-design would retain backwards compatibility for those of us who are deploying. Tim ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Redesign of Keystone Federation
Hi David and Kristy, looking at the slides it is not clear to me why you need to have an authn plugin for each Apache plugin. I have experience only with few Apache plugins and they provide the possibility to customise the attributes for the application behind. As an example, with mod_shib it is possible to define how the information coming from the IdP should be provided to the application. Maybe this is not possible with all plugins but I am wondering if it is possible the other way around. In other words, to create only a configurable authn plugin for all apache plugin. In the configuration you should provide the name of the attributes to look at and the mapping with the Keystone attributes. BTW: design 2 seems better although requires more work. Cheers, Marco On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:59:48PM +0100, David Chadwick wrote: Hi Everyone at the Atlanta meeting the following slides were presented during the federation session http://www.slideshare.net/davidwchadwick/keystone-apach-authn It was acknowledged that the current design is sub-optimal, but was a best first efforts to get something working in time for the IceHouse release, which it did successfully. Now is the time to redesign federated access in Keystone in order to allow for: i) the inclusion of more federation protocols such as OpenID and OpenID Connect via Apache plugins ii) federating together multiple Keystone installations iii) the inclusion of federation protocols directly into Keystone where good Apache plugins dont yet exist e.g. IETF ABFAB The Proposed Design (1) in the slide show is the simplest change to make, in which the Authn module has different plugins for different federation protocols, whether via Apache or not. The Proposed Design (2) is cleaner since the plugins are directly into Keystone and not via the Authn module, but it requires more re-engineering work, and it was questioned in Atlanta whether that effort exists or not. Kent therefore proposes that we go with Proposed Design (1). Kent will provide drafts of the revised APIs and the re-engineered code for inspection and approval by the group, if the group agrees to go with this revised design. If you have any questions about the proposed re-design, please don't hesitate to ask regards David and Kristy ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Eng. Marco Fargetta, PhD Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) Catania, Italy EMail: marco.farge...@ct.infn.it smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
