Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # dev >> [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components

Copy link to this message
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components
Leaving JIRAs and design docs aside, my recollection from the f2f lounge
discussion could be summarized as:

1* Decouple users-services authentication from (intra) services-services

The main motivation for this is to get pluggable authentication and
integrated SSO experience for users.

(we never discussed if this is needed for external-apps talking with Hadoop)

2* We should leave the Hadoop delegation tokens alone

No need to make this pluggable as this is an internal authentication
mechanism after the 'real' authentication happened.

(this is independent from factoring out all classes we currently have into
a common implementation for Hadoop and other projects to use)

3* Being able to replace kerberos with something else for (intra)
services-services authentication.

It was suggested that to support deployments where stock Kerberos may not
be an option (i.e. cloud) we should make sure that UserGroupInformation and
RPC security logic work with a pluggable GSS implementation.

4* Create a common security component ie 'hadoop-security' to be 'the'
security lib for all projects to use.

Create a component/project that would provide the common security pieces
for all projects to use.


If we agree with this, after any necessary corrections, I think we could
distill clear goals from it and start from there.


Tucu & Alejandro

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Larry (and all),
> Happy Fourth of July to you and yours.
> In our shop Kai and Tianyou are already doing the coding, so I'd defer to
> them on the detailed points.
> My concern here is there may have been a misinterpretation or lack of
> consensus on what is meant by "clean slate". Hopefully that can be quickly
> cleared up. Certainly we did not mean ignore all that came before. The idea
> was to reset discussions to find common ground and new direction where we
> are working together, not in conflict, on an agreed upon set of design
> points and tasks. There's been a lot of good discussion and design
> preceeding that we should figure out how to port over. Nowhere in this
> picture are self appointed "master JIRAs" and such, which have been
> disappointing to see crop up, we should be collaboratively coding not
> planting flags.
> I read Kai's latest document as something approaching today's consensus (or
> at least a common point of view?) rather than a historical document.
> Perhaps he and it can be given equal share of the consideration.
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Larry McCay wrote:
> > Hey Andrew -
> >
> > I largely agree with that statement.
> > My intention was to let the differences be worked out within the
> > individual components once they were identified and subtasks created.
> >
> > My reference to HSSO was really referring to a SSO *server* based design
> > which was not clearly articulated in the earlier documents.
> > We aren't trying to compare and contrast one design over another anymore.
> >
> > Let's move this collaboration along as we've mapped out and the
> > differences in the details will reveal themselves and be addressed within
> > their components.
> >
> > I've actually been looking forward to you weighing in on the actual
> > discussion points in this thread.
> > Could you do that?
> >
> > At this point, I am most interested in your thoughts on a single jira to
> > represent all of this work and whether we should start discussing the SSO
> > Tokens.
> > If you think there are discussion points missing from that list, feel
> free
> > to add to it.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > --larry
> >
> > On Jul 3, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Larry,
> > >
> > > Of course I'll let Kai speak for himself. However, let me point out
> that,
> > > while the differences between the competing JIRAs have been reduced for
> > > sure, there were some key differences that didn't just disappear.
> > > Subsequent discussion will make that clear. I also disagree with your