Secret Consumers
Spec for implementing Consumers API on Secrets. Story: 2005770 Task: 33487 APIImpact Change-Id: I0167ce2bd8c6cee82aeb1ec332c09b77efe2eab3
This commit is contained in:
Douglas Mendizábal
parent
5fc1790899
commit
69ac31c535
|
|
@ -6,10 +6,7 @@ Barbican Project Specifications
|
|||
|
||||
Train approved specs:
|
||||
|
||||
..
|
||||
disabled to not break builds, once first spec is added,
|
||||
this needs enabling.
|
||||
.. toctree::
|
||||
.. toctree::
|
||||
:glob:
|
||||
:maxdepth: 1
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,362 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
================
|
||||
Secret Consumers
|
||||
================
|
||||
|
||||
https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2005770
|
||||
|
||||
This spec proposes an addition to the Barbican Secrets API to allow
|
||||
other OpenStack projects to add references to individual Secrets when
|
||||
those secrets are being used by them.
|
||||
|
||||
This spec also proposes a change to both the Python and CLI clients in
|
||||
python-barbicanclient in how they handle the deletion of secrets.
|
||||
Clients would be changed such that deleting a secret will result in an
|
||||
error when they are still being consumed by another project unless a `force`
|
||||
parameter is provided.
|
||||
|
||||
This spec is part of a larger effort to provide Encrypted Images
|
||||
to OpenStack clouds.
|
||||
|
||||
Problem Description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
Other OpenStack projects would like to make use of an end user's secrets
|
||||
e.g. A Secret that contains an encryption key for Image Encryption.
|
||||
But there is currently no way for those projects to let the user know
|
||||
that they are using the Secret. This lack of awareness may lead to errors
|
||||
if the user deletes a Secret that is still in use by other projects.
|
||||
|
||||
On the other hand, users should be allowed to delete secrets whenever they
|
||||
want, so a Secret being used by other projects should not prevent deletion.
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed Change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
Add a new API to Secrets to register Secret Consumers (similar, but not
|
||||
identical to the Containers Consumer API [1]).
|
||||
|
||||
With this new API, other OpenStack projects would register as a consumer
|
||||
of a secret by sending a request to Barbican. Barbican stores the service
|
||||
type of the requesting service, as well as both the resource type and
|
||||
resource ID of the resource that is using the Secret.
|
||||
|
||||
See REST API Impact below for details of the API changes.
|
||||
|
||||
Clients to barbican would change the semantics for deleting secrets by
|
||||
returning an error when trying to delete a secret if that secret has one
|
||||
or more consumers. Clients will also accept an additional boolean parameter
|
||||
to delete a secret regardless of how many consumers it has.
|
||||
|
||||
See Python and Command Line Client Impact below for details of the client
|
||||
changes.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
One alternative would be to implement Secret Consumers just like Container
|
||||
Consumers, which uses a URL instead of the consuming entity type and ID.
|
||||
|
||||
Another alternative approach that was considered was to have each project
|
||||
clone the secret when they need to use it. This alternative has some
|
||||
downsides, however. For one, an end user may not be able to delete
|
||||
those copies.
|
||||
|
||||
Data model impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
A new model and associated data table will need to be added. For example,
|
||||
a new class SecretConsumerMetadatum with a secret_consumer_metadata table.
|
||||
|
||||
The new class will have references to both the secret_id as well as the
|
||||
project_id which owns the secret.
|
||||
|
||||
REST API impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
POST /v1/secrets/{secret_id}/consumers
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
Add a new resource as a consumer to a secret.
|
||||
|
||||
Body Parameters
|
||||
+++++++++++++++
|
||||
|
||||
+---------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| Name | Type | Description |
|
||||
+---------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| service | string | Consumer's OpenStack service type as shown in |
|
||||
| | | https://service-types.openstack.org/service-types.json |
|
||||
+---------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| resource_type | string | Name of the resource type using the secret |
|
||||
| (or resource_path?) | | e.g. "images" or "lbaas/loadbalancers" |
|
||||
+---------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| resource_id | string | Unique identifier for the resource using this secret. |
|
||||
+---------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
|
||||
Barbican will consider the resource_id to be a unique consumer. This assumes
|
||||
that resource_id is a UUID, and that duplicate IDs for different projects
|
||||
is not likely to ever happen in a single cloud.
|
||||
|
||||
resource_type should be meaningful to the individual projects, and should
|
||||
be used to identify the resource in the consuming service. For example,
|
||||
Glance could use "images" as the value of the resource type to indicate that
|
||||
the resrouce_id refers to an image.
|
||||
|
||||
Request
|
||||
+++++++
|
||||
|
||||
POST /v1/secrets/{secret_id}/consumers
|
||||
Headers:
|
||||
X-Auth-Token: {token}
|
||||
X-Content-Type: application/json
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"service": "image",
|
||||
"resource_type": "images",
|
||||
"resource_id": "{image_id}"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Responses
|
||||
+++++++++
|
||||
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| Code | Description |
|
||||
+======+====================================================================+
|
||||
| 200 | OK |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| 401 | Unauthorized - X-Auth-Token is invalid |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| 403 | Forbidden - X-Auth-Token is valid, but the associated project does |
|
||||
| | not have the appropriate role/scope |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
|
||||
GET /v1/secrets/{secret_id}/consumers
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
List consumers for a particular Secret.
|
||||
|
||||
Parameters
|
||||
++++++++++
|
||||
|
||||
+---------+---------+---------+-------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| Name | Type | Default | Description |
|
||||
+=========+=========+=========+=================================================+
|
||||
| offset | integer | 0 | Offset to start consumer response |
|
||||
+---------+---------+---------+-------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| limit | integer | 10 | Number of consumer entries returned in response |
|
||||
+---------+---------+---------+-------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| service | string | None | Filter by service type |
|
||||
+---------+---------+---------+-------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
|
||||
Request
|
||||
+++++++
|
||||
|
||||
GET /v1/secrets/{secret_id}/consumers
|
||||
Headers:
|
||||
X-Auth-Token: {token}
|
||||
|
||||
OK Response
|
||||
+++++++++++
|
||||
|
||||
200 OK
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"total": 1,
|
||||
"consumers": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"service": "image",
|
||||
"resource_type": "images",
|
||||
"resource_id" : "{image_id}"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Other Responses
|
||||
+++++++++++++++
|
||||
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| Code | Description |
|
||||
+======+====================================================================+
|
||||
| 401 | Unauthorized - X-Auth-Token is invalid |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| 403 | Forbidden - X-Auth-Token is valid, but the associated project does |
|
||||
| | not have the appropriate role/scope |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
|
||||
DELETE /v1/secrets/{secret_id}/consumers/{resource_id}
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
|
||||
Delete a consumer. ie. The resource is being deleted and it longer needs
|
||||
to access this secret.
|
||||
|
||||
Request
|
||||
+++++++
|
||||
|
||||
DELETE v1/secrets/{secret_id}/consumers/{resource_id}
|
||||
|
||||
Responses
|
||||
+++++++++
|
||||
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| Code | Description |
|
||||
+======+====================================================================+
|
||||
| 200 | OK |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| 401 | Unauthorized - X-Auth-Token is invalid |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| 403 | Forbidden - X-Auth-Token is valid, but the associated project does |
|
||||
| | not have the appropriate role/scope |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| 404 | Not Found - Consumer record for given resource_id was not found. |
|
||||
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Because the consumers are stored in the database, there is the possibility
|
||||
that a bad actor could add many consumers to try to fill the database disk
|
||||
space. Secret Consumers should be limited to the same quota as Container
|
||||
Consumers to mitigate this risk. For example:
|
||||
|
||||
[quota]
|
||||
quota_consumers=10000
|
||||
|
||||
Would limit both Container Consumers and Secret Consumers to a maximum
|
||||
of 10,000 consumers each for both a single Container or a single Secret.
|
||||
|
||||
Notifications & Audit Impact
|
||||
----------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The new API endpoints should be audited as usual.
|
||||
|
||||
Python and Command Line Client Impact
|
||||
-------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The Secret class in python-barbicanclient should be updated to add new
|
||||
methods such as:
|
||||
|
||||
class Secret(...):
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
def add_consumer(self, service_type, resource_type, resource_id):
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
def remove_consumer(self, service_type, resource_type, resource_id):
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
Both methods should raise appropriate exceptions when the API returns an error.
|
||||
Additionally, the Secret.delete() method should be updated to take a new *force*
|
||||
parameter and throw an exception when delete() is called with force=False,
|
||||
and the secret still has consumers:
|
||||
|
||||
class Secret(...):
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
def delete(self, force=False):
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
The CLI client should be changed to add new consumer options, such as:
|
||||
|
||||
openstack secret consumer add --service-type=image --resource-type=image \
|
||||
--resource-id=XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
|
||||
|
||||
openstack secret consumer remove --service-type=image --resource-type=image \
|
||||
--resource-id=XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
|
||||
|
||||
The secret delete command should be changed to take a *--force* parameter:
|
||||
|
||||
openstack secret delete --force {secret_uuid}
|
||||
|
||||
This command should return an error when a secret has one or more consumers
|
||||
and the --force flag is not used:
|
||||
|
||||
openstack secret delete {secret_uuid_with_consumers}
|
||||
ERROR: Secret has one or more consumers. Use --force to delete anyway.
|
||||
|
||||
These changes will require a new Major version for python-barbicanclient
|
||||
because the default --force=False option could cause some scripts to break in
|
||||
certain scenarios where secrets are currently being deleted that do have
|
||||
consumers associated with them.
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Currently there is no other impact to the end user other than the CLI changes
|
||||
listed above. In the future, when a barbican-ui for Horizon is developed,
|
||||
it should use the consumers to present confirmation dialogs to the user
|
||||
when deleting Secrets which have consumers.
|
||||
|
||||
It should be noted that Deleting Secrets in the Barbican REST API
|
||||
has not changed, and a client using the API directly will be able to delete
|
||||
a secret regardless of the presence of consumers.
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Deleting secrets using the CLI or the Python client will be affected as we
|
||||
will likely need to perform additional requests to the API to get the list of
|
||||
consumers for a secret before sending a DELETE request.
|
||||
|
||||
Other deployer impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
When python-barbican changes are merged, some automation scripts that use
|
||||
secret deletion may break if the secrets being deleted have consumers.
|
||||
|
||||
Any automation scripts should be updated to use the --force flag if needed.
|
||||
|
||||
Developer impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Developers of other projects that want to make use of this feature will
|
||||
need to use python-barbicanclient to integrate with the Key Manager service.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
Douglas Mendizábal (Freenode: redrobot) <dmendiza@redhat.com>
|
||||
|
||||
Other contributors:
|
||||
Moisés Guimarães (Freenode: moguimar) <moguimar@redhat.com>
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
* Implement Model changes and database migration
|
||||
* Implement API changes
|
||||
* Implement python-barbicanclient changes (both python client and CLI)
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
None.
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Tempest test cases should be added to test adding/removing Secret Consumers
|
||||
using a service-user that is not barbican.
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
All API changes should be documented in the API reference, as well as the
|
||||
API Guide.
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
[1] Container Consumers API:
|
||||
https://docs.openstack.org/barbican/stein/api/reference/consumers.html
|
||||
|
||||
Barbican Train PTG Etherpad:
|
||||
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/barbican-train-ptg
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,342 +0,0 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
Example Spec - The title of your blueprint
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
|
||||
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/barbican/+spec/example
|
||||
|
||||
Include the URL of your client blueprint:
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-barbicanclient/example
|
||||
|
||||
Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of
|
||||
prose that operators can understand.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about using this template:
|
||||
|
||||
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
||||
|
||||
* Please wrap text at 79 columns.
|
||||
|
||||
* The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for
|
||||
example a URL of: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/barbican/+spec/awesome-thing
|
||||
should be named awesome-thing.rst
|
||||
|
||||
* Please do not delete any of the sections in this template. If you have
|
||||
nothing to say for a whole section, just write: None
|
||||
|
||||
* For help with syntax, see http://sphinx-doc.org/rest.html
|
||||
|
||||
* To test out your formatting, build the docs using tox, or see:
|
||||
http://rst.ninjs.org
|
||||
|
||||
* If you would like to provide a diagram with your spec, ascii diagrams are
|
||||
required. http://asciiflow.com/ is a very nice tool to assist with making
|
||||
ascii diagrams. The reason for this is that the tool used to review specs is
|
||||
based purely on plain text. Plain text will allow review to proceed without
|
||||
having to look at additional files which can not be viewed in gerrit. It
|
||||
will also allow inline feedback on the diagram itself.
|
||||
|
||||
* If your specification proposes any changes to the Barbican REST API such
|
||||
as changing parameters which can be returned or accepted, or even
|
||||
the semantics of what happens when a client calls into the API, then
|
||||
you should add the APIImpact flag to the commit message. Specifications with
|
||||
the APIImpact flag can be found with the following query::
|
||||
|
||||
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/barbican-specs+message:apiimpact,n,z
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Problem Description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
A detailed description of the problem:
|
||||
|
||||
* For a new feature this might be use cases. Ensure you are clear about the
|
||||
actors in each use case: End User vs Deployer
|
||||
|
||||
* For a major reworking of something existing it would describe the
|
||||
problems in that feature that are being addressed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed Change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
Here is where you cover the change you propose to make in detail. How do you
|
||||
propose to solve this problem?
|
||||
|
||||
If this is one part of a larger effort make it clear where this piece ends. In
|
||||
other words, what's the scope of this effort?
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
What other ways could we do this thing? Why aren't we using those? This doesn't
|
||||
have to be a full literature review, but it should demonstrate that thought has
|
||||
been put into why the proposed solution is an appropriate one.
|
||||
|
||||
Data model impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Changes which require modifications to the data model often have a wider impact
|
||||
on the system. The community often has strong opinions on how the data model
|
||||
should be evolved, from both a functional and performance perspective. It is
|
||||
therefore important to capture and gain agreement as early as possible on any
|
||||
proposed changes to the data model.
|
||||
|
||||
Questions which need to be addressed by this section include:
|
||||
|
||||
* What new data objects and/or database schema changes is this going to
|
||||
require?
|
||||
|
||||
* What database migrations will accompany this change (if any)?
|
||||
|
||||
* How will the initial set of new data objects be generated? For example, if you
|
||||
need to take into account existing keys, or modify other existing data
|
||||
describe how that will work.
|
||||
|
||||
REST API impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Each API method which is either added or changed should have the following
|
||||
|
||||
* Specification for the method
|
||||
|
||||
* A description of what the method does suitable for use in
|
||||
user documentation
|
||||
|
||||
* Method type (POST/PUT/GET/DELETE)
|
||||
|
||||
* Normal http response code(s)
|
||||
|
||||
* Expected error http response code(s)
|
||||
|
||||
* A description for each possible error code should be included
|
||||
describing semantic errors which can cause it such as
|
||||
inconsistent parameters supplied to the method, or when an
|
||||
instance is not in an appropriate state for the request to
|
||||
succeed. Errors caused by syntactic problems covered by the JSON
|
||||
schema defintion do not need to be included.
|
||||
|
||||
* URL for the resource
|
||||
|
||||
* Parameters which can be passed via the url
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the body data if allowed
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the response data if any
|
||||
|
||||
* Example use case including typical API samples for both data supplied
|
||||
by the caller and the response
|
||||
|
||||
* Discuss any policy changes, and discuss what things a deployer needs to
|
||||
think about when defining their policy.
|
||||
|
||||
Example JSON schema definitions can be found in the Nova tree
|
||||
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/tree/nova/api/openstack/compute/schemas/v3
|
||||
|
||||
Note that the schema should be defined as restrictively as
|
||||
possible. Parameters which are required should be marked as such and
|
||||
only under exceptional circumstances should additional parameters
|
||||
which are not defined in the schema be permitted (eg
|
||||
additionaProperties should be False).
|
||||
|
||||
Reuse of existing predefined parameter types such as regexps for
|
||||
passwords and user defined names is highly encouraged.
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential security impact on the system. Some of the items to
|
||||
consider include:
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change touch sensitive data such as tokens, keys, or user data?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change alter the API in a way that may impact security, such as
|
||||
a new way to access sensitive information or a new way to login?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change involve cryptography or hashing?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change require the use of sudo or any elevated privileges?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change involve using or parsing user-provided data? This could
|
||||
be directly at the API level or indirectly such as changes to a cache layer.
|
||||
|
||||
* Can this change enable a resource exhaustion attack, such as allowing a
|
||||
single API interaction to consume significant server resources? Some examples
|
||||
of this include launching subprocesses for each connection, or entity
|
||||
expansion attacks in XML.
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change the need for auditing in any way?
|
||||
|
||||
For more detailed guidance, please see the OpenStack Security Guidelines as
|
||||
a reference (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Security/Guidelines). These
|
||||
guidelines are a work in progress and are designed to help you identify
|
||||
security best practices. For further information, feel free to reach out
|
||||
to the OpenStack Security Group at openstack-security@lists.openstack.org.
|
||||
|
||||
Notifications & Audit Impact
|
||||
----------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Please specify any changes to notifications or auditing. Be that an extra notification,
|
||||
changes to an existing notification, or removing a notification.
|
||||
|
||||
Python and Command Line Client Impact
|
||||
-------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Please specify any changes to the python and command line clients (CLI). Consider
|
||||
the OpenStack unified clients as well as the soon to be deprecated Barbican clients.
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Aside from the API, are there other ways a user will interact with this
|
||||
feature?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change have an impact on python-novaclient? What does the user
|
||||
interface there look like?
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential performance impact on the system, for example
|
||||
how often will new code be called, and is there a major change to the calling
|
||||
pattern of existing code.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples of things to consider here include:
|
||||
|
||||
* A periodic task might look like a small addition but if it calls conductor or
|
||||
another service the load is multiplied by the number of nodes in the system.
|
||||
|
||||
* Scheduler filters get called once per host for every instance being created,
|
||||
so any latency they introduce is linear with the size of the system.
|
||||
|
||||
* A small change in a utility function or a commonly used decorator can have a
|
||||
large impacts on performance.
|
||||
|
||||
* Calls which result in a database queries (whether direct or via conductor)
|
||||
can have a profound impact on performance when called in critical sections of
|
||||
the code.
|
||||
|
||||
* Will the change include any locking, and if so what considerations are there
|
||||
on holding the lock?
|
||||
|
||||
Other deployer impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Discuss things that will affect how you deploy and configure OpenStack
|
||||
that have not already been mentioned, such as:
|
||||
|
||||
* What config options are being added? Should they be more generic than
|
||||
proposed (for example a flag that other hypervisor drivers might want to
|
||||
implement as well)? Are the default values ones which will work well in
|
||||
real deployments?
|
||||
|
||||
* Is this a change that takes immediate effect after its merged, or is it
|
||||
something that has to be explicitly enabled?
|
||||
|
||||
* If this change is a new binary, how would it be deployed?
|
||||
|
||||
* Please state anything that those doing continuous deployment, or those
|
||||
upgrading from the previous release, need to be aware of. Also describe
|
||||
any plans to deprecate configuration values or features. For example, if we
|
||||
change the directory name that instances are stored in, how do we handle
|
||||
instance directories created before the change landed? Do we move them? Do
|
||||
we have a special case in the code? Do we assume that the operator will
|
||||
recreate all the instances in their cloud?
|
||||
|
||||
Developer impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Discuss things that will affect other developers working on OpenStack,
|
||||
such as:
|
||||
|
||||
* If the blueprint proposes a change to the driver API, discussion of how
|
||||
other hypervisors would implement the feature is required.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
Who is leading the writing of the code? Or is this a blueprint where you're
|
||||
throwing it out there to see who picks it up?
|
||||
|
||||
If more than one person is working on the implementation, please designate the
|
||||
primary author and contact.
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
<launchpad-id or None>
|
||||
|
||||
Other contributors:
|
||||
<launchpad-id or None>
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
Work items or tasks -- break the feature up into the things that need to be
|
||||
done to implement it. Those parts might end up being done by different people,
|
||||
but we're mostly trying to understand the timeline for implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
* Include specific references to specs and/or blueprints in nova, or in other
|
||||
projects, that this one either depends on or is related to.
|
||||
|
||||
* If this requires functionality of another project that is not currently used
|
||||
by Nova (such as the glance v2 API when we previously only required v1),
|
||||
document that fact.
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this feature require any new library dependencies or code otherwise not
|
||||
included in OpenStack? Or does it depend on a specific version of library?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Please discuss how the change will be tested. We especially want to know what
|
||||
tempest tests will be added. It is assumed that unit test coverage will be
|
||||
added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly, but discussion of why
|
||||
you think unit tests are sufficient and we don't need to add more tempest
|
||||
tests would need to be included.
|
||||
|
||||
Is this untestable in gate given current limitations (specific hardware /
|
||||
software configurations available)? If so, are there mitigation plans (3rd
|
||||
party testing, gate enhancements, etc).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
What is the impact on the docs team of this change? Some changes might require
|
||||
donating resources to the docs team to have the documentation updated. Don't
|
||||
repeat details discussed above, but please reference them here.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
Please add any useful references here. You are not required to have any
|
||||
reference. Moreover, this specification should still make sense when your
|
||||
references are unavailable. Examples of what you could include are:
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to mailing list or IRC discussions
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to notes from a summit session
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to relevant research, if appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
* Related specifications as appropriate (e.g. if it's an EC2 thing, link the
|
||||
EC2 docs)
|
||||
|
||||
* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue