16:00:03 #startmeeting keystone 16:00:04 Meeting started Tue Feb 26 16:00:03 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is lbragstad. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:05 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:07 The meeting name has been set to 'keystone' 16:00:11 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-weekly-meeting 16:00:14 agenda ^ 16:00:15 o/ 16:00:18 o/ 16:00:23 * cmurphy dual meetings again :( 16:00:37 ouch 16:00:41 o/ 16:01:44 o/ 16:02:10 #topic announcements 16:02:22 #info feature freeze is next week 16:02:33 we are in R-6, so not a whole lot of time left in the release 16:02:53 if you're all wrapped up with features, we can plenty of other features that need reviews 16:02:59 o/ 16:03:11 also non-client release is this week right? 16:03:14 otherwise - getting an early start on bugs for after feature freeze is always appreciated 16:03:17 cmurphy ++ 16:03:19 yep 16:03:30 o/ 16:03:57 i know some other projects are already expecting a pretty good queue for feature freeze week 16:04:06 so - the earlier we get things reviewed the better 16:04:19 i should have a test case for KSA shortly for the fair semaphore. I'd like to get this in the release 16:04:32 and we need to get Application Credential stuff landed/in 16:04:46 right - i think we can hit that later in the schedule, when we call for reviews 16:04:55 i mainly wanted to hit on the release schedule 16:05:24 also - i don't think we had any action items from last week 16:05:45 #topic Updating federation jobs 16:05:47 cmurphy o/ 16:05:56 hello 16:06:09 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/003129.html migrating off xenial message from gmann 16:06:28 I think this technically doesn't apply to us because we're not using the legacy jobs any more? 16:06:45 but it's still not ideal to be stuck on xenial while the ubuntu shibboleth package is broken 16:07:15 thanks to the great work erus has done we can run federation jobs on centos or opensuse now (still nonvoting due to relying on external idp) 16:07:24 so i propose running them on opensuse 16:07:39 that's fair 16:07:41 thoughts? 16:07:45 wfm. 16:07:47 +2 16:08:13 working > distro. 16:08:15 do we plan to run them on ubuntu again once the packaging issue is squared away? 16:08:34 honestly, i just don't care what distro it's run on as long as the distro support is maintained 16:08:49 imo as long as opensuse continues working (and I will be motivated to keep it working) i would stay on opensuse for those 16:08:51 i don't see a reason to flip-flop for the sake of a distro if opensuse continues to be maintained in gate. 16:09:05 ok - that works 16:09:22 okay i'll propose that in gerrit unless anyone tells me they have problems with it 16:09:24 * kmalloc [/s] proposes moving all keystone testing to opensuse because cmurphy is super motivated for it to work :P 16:09:28 lol 16:09:44 sounds like someone is getting signed up for work 16:10:02 having federation testing is super important. 16:10:06 agreed 16:10:33 that's all from me on that 16:10:35 maybe we consider generalizing the federation testing stuff once we no longer require a formal idp and have all the x509 stuff fixed 16:10:45 yeah much important 16:10:59 i'd still advocate for a real IDP for testing. 16:11:01 at some point 16:11:11 something that is stood up per-test run if possible 16:11:30 ack 16:11:35 related question 16:11:43 i thought we agreed having keystone as the idp was mostly good enough to test most federation code paths? 16:12:07 by show of hands, how many people feel comfortable or understand how the federated testing stuff works? 16:12:18 o/ 16:12:24 * hrybacki has hands down 16:12:46 o/ . I am also working on federation 16:12:52 cmurphy: its fine if keystone is passing through all the federated paths, if that means shibboleth is also needed, fine, if it can straight be k2k that is fine. 16:13:18 lbragstad: i mostly understand it, but i've been off reviewing other things, so it's swapping data back into my active memory to be sure. 16:13:28 ok - i ask because we've had a lot of little changes since the last PTG (x509, keystone as an idp, legacy federation stuff) 16:13:46 the only bits that are still a relative PITA to understand is the shadowusers bits. 16:13:49 and i'm wondering if we should dedicate a focuses session on it either at the PTG or forum 16:13:58 focused* 16:14:07 and what it does isn't bad... but all the half implemented bits are ... well ugh 16:14:31 probably a good idea for PTG, a federation testing / functionality bootcamp 16:14:37 ok 16:14:37 i don't think it's a forum bit. 16:14:43 ++ 16:14:53 this really is focused on the team understanding it, not external folks consuming it 16:15:04 that actually leads to the next topic 16:15:16 # Forum/PTG proposals and planning 16:15:29 #topic Forum/PTG proposals and planning 16:15:37 * lbragstad relearns how to meeting 16:15:50 hopefully everyone saw #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/003021.html 16:16:02 as well as #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DEN-keystone-forum-sessions 16:16:38 we don't have a whole lot of time to think about forum proposals 16:17:38 but if you have ideas, please write them down on the etherpad 16:17:53 if you don't have time to submit the proposals to the tool, that's fine, i can do it 16:18:15 I think the 3-4 on the etherpad are good proposals 16:18:39 yeah - i'll be honest, i wasn't expecting to do a policy related thing this go around 16:18:40 just make all the sessions "We're doing stuff with identity, come talk with us, you know you want to" 16:18:54 but after last week and reading your snippet cmurphy - i'm reconsidering 16:20:03 yeah i'm not sure, maybe we want another cycle to work through it as a team before bringing it to everyone else? 16:20:09 also, please make sure you indicate if you'll make it to the summit (forum) or the PTG on the etherpad(s) 16:20:20 but seems like we're wrapping it up in keystone 16:20:20 (i know it's up in the air for some folks still) 16:20:30 but it might direct what is covered. 16:20:35 cmurphy yeah - there isn't much left for keystone 16:20:35 i'm still technically not approved 16:21:00 if there are really only 3 people at the forum from the keystone team, there is less that can be directly covered. 16:21:14 Adam will be there too fyi 16:21:36 * kmalloc hasn't cleared going yet, some things up in the air. 16:21:46 i booked hotel :P because that seems to sell out the fastest. 16:21:55 if we do another session on policy - i think it has to be focused 16:21:55 (and can be cancelled) 16:22:33 i also think we need to be prepared to dig into examples with people 16:22:33 well, fwiw we do have a policy lab ("lab" not enough time to properly cover it imho) 16:23:01 similar to how we approach the policy-and-docs-in-code community goal the first time we were in denver 16:23:01 hrybacki: is the audience for that going to be openstack operators or openstack developers? 16:23:16 cmurphy: operators 16:23:36 I need to sync w/ adam (will do on Friday) because we were expecting to have like 3 hours 16:23:42 hrybacki: i think if we do a forum session it would be more future-looking and developer-focused 16:23:45 so 'what it is' may change 16:24:06 cmurphy: oh then yes, I'm for it. Even if it we review the current attack plan 16:24:19 maybe another project is interested in prototyping the work we are doing in Keystone already 16:25:50 ok - if this is a forum session 16:26:00 do we want to do anything for the ptg on policy? 16:26:15 or should we carve out some time at the ptg to "work through examples"? 16:27:38 might be good to have a kind of recap session at ptg so we can formulate a plan for closing 968698 based on what's discussed at the forum session 16:27:47 ok 16:28:31 we have the old plan still -- we could use that as scaffolding for the discussion too 16:29:34 ack 16:29:41 kind of related 16:29:48 that etherpad is for the forum, specifically 16:30:08 but i'm fine recycling it for PTG topics, too 16:30:41 might as well use the same one unless it totally blows up 16:30:59 if you have ideas for the PTG, please add them 16:31:06 doesn't have to be crazy detailed 16:31:21 just enough to get us started, we'll filter the topics later when we get closer to the event 16:36:16 anyone else have ideas or suggestions for the PTG or forum? 16:37:01 ok - moving on 16:37:05 #topic Reviews 16:37:14 does anyone have reviews they need eyes on? 16:37:38 some easy ones https://review.openstack.org/#/q/(topic:py37+OR+topic:py37-job)+owner:%22Colleen+Murphy+%253Ccolleen%2540gazlene.net%253E%22++is:open https://review.openstack.org/636966 16:38:35 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/keystone+branch:master+topic:bp/domain-level-limit 16:38:37 and if we want to at least partially land access rules for app creds then we need this https://review.openstack.org/633369 and its two dependencies and releases of those dependencies this week 16:39:19 also - for those unfamiliar with the changes to app creds 16:39:21 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/639182/ 16:40:04 a bunch of patches here have at least one +2 16:40:07 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/keystone+branch:master+topic:implement-default-roles 16:40:12 others just need a rebase 16:40:57 also - i had a long discussion with melwitt last week on scope types and how other openstack developers can actually use them 16:41:03 i've attempted to write that up 16:41:05 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638563/ 16:42:03 nice 16:42:51 anyone else have anything for review? 16:43:15 #topic open discussion 16:43:49 reminder: next week is ptl self-nomination period 16:44:07 and R-4 will be the elections 16:44:25 (for projects with more than one candidate) 16:44:27 lbragstad: I am not able to run domain test cases for role assignment https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638587/ 16:44:49 vishakha need some help with the failures? 16:45:19 oh vishakha i wrote out how the openstack_groups mapping might work here https://review.openstack.org/638684 16:45:30 yes. I tried debugging. But facing similar issues 16:46:12 vishakha want me to take a look a little later today? 16:46:41 cmurphy: Thanks. I will take a look over it. 16:47:20 lbragstad: whenever you have spare time.no hurries 16:47:33 vishakha sounds good - i'll put it on my list 16:47:43 thanks for picking that up 16:47:57 anything else for open discussion? 16:49:04 alright - looks like we can get some time back 16:49:13 i appreciate everyone making the time to be here 16:49:17 thanks lbragstad 16:49:20 thanks lbragstad o/ 16:49:24 thanks all :) 16:49:27 #endmeeting