4:06 a.m.
Hey,
The following wiki page describes a new feature - supporting session management via the
REST API:
http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/RESTSessionManagement
Please review and comment.
Thank you,
Oved
12:26 a.m.
Hi Oved,
+1 for this feature.
[[As a background to the others on the list, this feature is absolutely
essential for certain types of ISV integration. Many ISVs need to mirror
the RHEV inventory (i.e. all VMs, clusters, basically any object managed
by RHEV) in realtime to their own database. The way they do this
currently is by polling /api/events and look for changes. In order to be
able to react to changes fast, they typically poll every 5 seconds. The
query itself is very efficient, so it doesn't cause a whole lot of load
on RHEV-M. But it floods the log with login/logout events. This
persistent session feature is a solution for that.]]
Actually my vote would go for your variation #2:
The client passes the "Prefer" header field on every request,
besides the last one. When the server gets a request with a
JSESSIONID, and without the "Prefer" header, it logs out the session.
It's mostly my gut feeling, but i would say it has these advantages:
1. It is more explicit, as on every request you confirm that you still
want the authenticated session to be maintained.
2. It is also consistent with the default we have chosen of no
persistent authentication.
3. It does not need a second header, so it is somewhat simpler.
Regards,
Geert
On 04/15/2012 01:06 PM, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
Hey,
The following wiki page describes a new feature - supporting session management via the
REST API:
http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/RESTSessionManagement
Please review and comment.
Thank you,
Oved
--
Geert Jansen
Sr. Product Marketing Manager, Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
Red Hat S.r.L. O: +39 095 916287
Via G. Fara 26 C: +39 348 1980079 (when in US: 415-623-0542)
Milan 20124, Italy E: gjansen(a)redhat.com
12:44 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geert Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com>
To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>, "Eoghan Glynn"
<eglynn(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:26:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST session management
Hi Oved,
+1 for this feature.
[[As a background to the others on the list, this feature is
absolutely
essential for certain types of ISV integration. Many ISVs need to
mirror
the RHEV inventory (i.e. all VMs, clusters, basically any object
managed
by RHEV) in realtime to their own database. The way they do this
currently is by polling /api/events and look for changes. In order to
be
able to react to changes fast, they typically poll every 5 seconds.
The
query itself is very efficient, so it doesn't cause a whole lot of
load
on RHEV-M. But it floods the log with login/logout events. This
persistent session feature is a solution for that.]]
Thank you for the background. I'll add it to the wiki page.
Actually my vote would go for your variation #2:
The client passes the "Prefer" header field on every request,
besides the last one. When the server gets a request with a
JSESSIONID, and without the "Prefer" header, it logs out the
session.
It's mostly my gut feeling, but i would say it has these advantages:
1. It is more explicit, as on every request you confirm that you
still
want the authenticated session to be maintained.
2. It is also consistent with the default we have chosen of no
persistent authentication.
3. It does not need a second header, so it is somewhat simpler.
I Agree on that, although I'm not sure whether it is really needed to release the
session, rather then rely on timeout.
If we indeed need to provide a way to release the session then I agree this is the best
alternative. But if we don't then it will make the API to the client more (but not
very) complex in that manner.
The only doubt I have about that is that from reading on the new "Prefer"
header, I got the feeling that it is more relevant on session negotiation, and less
something you would pass on every request in the session, but I'm not sure about
that.
Regards,
Geert
On 04/15/2012 01:06 PM, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The following wiki page describes a new feature - supporting
> session management via the REST API:
> http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/RESTSessionManagement
>
> Please review and comment.
>
> Thank you,
> Oved
--
Geert Jansen
Sr. Product Marketing Manager, Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
Red Hat S.r.L. O: +39 095 916287
Via G. Fara 26 C: +39 348 1980079 (when in US:
415-623-0542)
Milan 20124, Italy E: gjansen(a)redhat.com
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
1:04 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
To: "Geert Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>, "Eoghan Glynn"
<eglynn(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:44:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST session management
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geert Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>, "Eoghan
Glynn"
> <eglynn(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:26:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST session management
>
> Hi Oved,
>
> +1 for this feature.
>
> [[As a background to the others on the list, this feature is
> absolutely
> essential for certain types of ISV integration. Many ISVs need to
> mirror
> the RHEV inventory (i.e. all VMs, clusters, basically any object
> managed
> by RHEV) in realtime to their own database. The way they do this
> currently is by polling /api/events and look for changes. In order
> to
> be
> able to react to changes fast, they typically poll every 5 seconds.
> The
> query itself is very efficient, so it doesn't cause a whole lot of
> load
> on RHEV-M. But it floods the log with login/logout events. This
> persistent session feature is a solution for that.]]
>
Thank you for the background. I'll add it to the wiki page.
> Actually my vote would go for your variation #2:
>
> The client passes the "Prefer" header field on every request,
> besides the last one. When the server gets a request with a
> JSESSIONID, and without the "Prefer" header, it logs out the
> session.
>
> It's mostly my gut feeling, but i would say it has these
> advantages:
>
> 1. It is more explicit, as on every request you confirm that you
> still
> want the authenticated session to be maintained.
> 2. It is also consistent with the default we have chosen of no
> persistent authentication.
> 3. It does not need a second header, so it is somewhat simpler.
>
I Agree on that, although I'm not sure whether it is really needed to
release the session, rather then rely on timeout.
If we indeed need to provide a way to release the session then I
agree this is the best alternative. But if we don't then it will
make the API to the client more (but not very) complex in that
manner.
I would go for both - release mechanism (for proper handling) and timeout
mechanism for garbage collection.
(refer to:
http://blog.synopse.info/post/2011/05/24/How-to-implement-RESTful-authent...)
The only doubt I have about that is that from reading on the new
"Prefer" header, I got the feeling that it is more relevant on
session negotiation, and less something you would pass on every
request in the session, but I'm not sure about that.
> Regards,
> Geert
>
> On 04/15/2012 01:06 PM, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > The following wiki page describes a new feature - supporting
> > session management via the REST API:
> > http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/RESTSessionManagement
> >
> > Please review and comment.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Oved
>
> --
> Geert Jansen
> Sr. Product Marketing Manager, Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
>
> Red Hat S.r.L. O: +39 095 916287
> Via G. Fara 26 C: +39 348 1980079 (when in US:
> 415-623-0542)
> Milan 20124, Italy E: gjansen(a)redhat.com
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
1:34 a.m.
On 04/16/2012 10:04 AM, Miki Kenneth wrote:
> I Agree on that, although I'm not sure whether it is really
needed to
> release the session, rather then rely on timeout.
> If we indeed need to provide a way to release the session then I
> agree this is the best alternative. But if we don't then it will
> make the API to the client more (but not very) complex in that
> manner.
I would go for both - release mechanism (for proper handling) and timeout mechanism for
garbage collection.
(refer to:
http://blog.synopse.info/post/2011/05/24/How-to-implement-RESTful-authent...)
Agreed we need both. I think that for security purposes, it is important
to have a "log out" function. That way, client applications can decide
depending on their local security requirements whether or not it is
acceptable to leave a session open.
Regards,
Geert
1:44 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geert Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com>
To: "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>, "engine-devel"
<engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>, "Eoghan Glynn" <eglynn(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:34:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST session management
On 04/16/2012 10:04 AM, Miki Kenneth wrote:
>> I Agree on that, although I'm not sure whether it is really needed
>> to
>> release the session, rather then rely on timeout.
>> If we indeed need to provide a way to release the session then I
>> agree this is the best alternative. But if we don't then it will
>> make the API to the client more (but not very) complex in that
>> manner.
>
> I would go for both - release mechanism (for proper handling) and
> timeout mechanism for garbage collection.
> (refer to:
> http://blog.synopse.info/post/2011/05/24/How-to-implement-RESTful-authent...)
Agreed we need both. I think that for security purposes, it is
important
to have a "log out" function. That way, client applications can
decide
depending on their local security requirements whether or not it is
acceptable to leave a session open.
So (unless someone objects) let's go for option #2 (using the Prefer header on
each and every request, and release the session once it is not there).
Thank you,
Oved
Regards,
Geert
4:03 a.m.
On 04/16/2012 11:44 AM, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geert Jansen"<gjansen(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Miki Kenneth"<mkenneth(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "Oved Ourfalli"<ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
"engine-devel"<engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>, "Eoghan
Glynn"<eglynn(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:34:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST session management
>
>
> On 04/16/2012 10:04 AM, Miki Kenneth wrote:
>
>>> I Agree on that, although I'm not sure whether it is really needed
>>> to
>>> release the session, rather then rely on timeout.
>>> If we indeed need to provide a way to release the session then I
>>> agree this is the best alternative. But if we don't then it will
>>> make the API to the client more (but not very) complex in that
>>> manner.
> >
>> I would go for both - release mechanism (for proper handling) and
>> timeout mechanism for garbage collection.
>> (refer to:
>>
http://blog.synopse.info/post/2011/05/24/How-to-implement-RESTful-authent...)
> Agreed we need both. I think that for security purposes, it is
> important
> to have a "log out" function. That way, client applications can
> decide
> depending on their local security requirements whether or not it is
> acceptable to leave a session open.
>
So (unless someone objects) let's go for option #2 (using the Prefer header on each
and every request, and release the session once it is not there).
My only objection is that you implement a draft spec and implement a
header without even bothering to register it - or asking if there is
such an identical-purposed header with a different name which may get
registered / is already in use somewhere.
Y.
Thank you,
Oved
> Regards,
> Geert
>
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
4:46 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul(a)redhat.com>
To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>, "Eoghan Glynn"
<eglynn(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:03:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST session management
On 04/16/2012 11:44 AM, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Geert Jansen"<gjansen(a)redhat.com>
>> To: "Miki Kenneth"<mkenneth(a)redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Oved Ourfalli"<ovedo(a)redhat.com>,
>> "engine-devel"<engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>, "Eoghan
>> Glynn"<eglynn(a)redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:34:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] REST session management
>>
>>
>> On 04/16/2012 10:04 AM, Miki Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>>> I Agree on that, although I'm not sure whether it is really
>>>> needed
>>>> to
>>>> release the session, rather then rely on timeout.
>>>> If we indeed need to provide a way to release the session then I
>>>> agree this is the best alternative. But if we don't then it will
>>>> make the API to the client more (but not very) complex in that
>>>> manner.
>> >
>>> I would go for both - release mechanism (for proper handling) and
>>> timeout mechanism for garbage collection.
>>> (refer to:
>>>
http://blog.synopse.info/post/2011/05/24/How-to-implement-RESTful-authent...)
>> Agreed we need both. I think that for security purposes, it is
>> important
>> to have a "log out" function. That way, client applications can
>> decide
>> depending on their local security requirements whether or not it
>> is
>> acceptable to leave a session open.
>>
> So (unless someone objects) let's go for option #2 (using the
> Prefer header on each and every request, and release the session
> once it is not there).
My only objection is that you implement a draft spec and implement a
header without even bothering to register it - or asking if there is
such an identical-purposed header with a different name which may get
registered / is already in use somewhere.
Y.
One of the reasons of posting to this mailing list is to try and get information
on alternatives.
I already looked for similar headers, but I'll take another look to see if others
exist.
Any idea where I can get an official answer for that?
Looked in http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html, but it was
hard to find a more suitable header there.
We can have a dedicated header of our own in that matter, but better being standard.
BTW, from what I read the acceptance process is in its final stages, but I'm not too
familiar with the process, so hard to say how much time will it take for it to be
complete.
>
> Thank you,
> Oved
>> Regards,
>> Geert
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
5:31 a.m.
On 04/16/2012 01:03 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> So (unless someone objects) let's go for option #2 (using the
Prefer
> header on each and every request, and release the session once it is
> not there).
My only objection is that you implement a draft spec and implement a
header without even bothering to register it - or asking if there is
such an identical-purposed header with a different name which may get
registered / is already in use somewhere.
This is somewhat of a red herring though.
HTTP Prefer was created exactly for the purpose of indicating a
preference for a certain behavior of response. Have a look at section
9.1.1 of the draft RFC for the initial preferences and you'll see the
preferences that are already registered.
HTTP Prefer also defines a registration process for the possible values
of this header. The process requires an email to preferences(a)ietf.org
with a 14 day response time.
The alternative to HTTP Prefer would be creating a new header (as i am
not aware of any other /approved/ header that fits the bill). This
requires writing an RFC and get it approved, which would take much
longer, and which would likely get the comment of "Why aren't you using
Prefer".
Even if HTTP Prefer, for whatever reason, unexpectedly does not become a
standard, i think in practice this does not impact us in any way.
Regards
Geert
7:34 a.m.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040008030508030100010909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 04/16/2012 03:31 PM, Geert Jansen wrote:
On 04/16/2012 01:03 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
>> So (unless someone objects) let's go for option #2 (using the Prefer
>> header on each and every request, and release the session once it is
>> not there).
>
> My only objection is that you implement a draft spec and implement a
> header without even bothering to register it - or asking if there is
> such an identical-purposed header with a different name which may get
> registered / is already in use somewhere.
This is somewhat of a red herring though.
HTTP Prefer was created exactly for the purpose of indicating a
preference for a certain behavior of response. Have a look at section
9.1.1 of the draft RFC for the initial preferences and you'll see the
preferences that are already registered.
HTTP Prefer also defines a registration process for the possible
values of this header. The process requires an email to
preferences(a)ietf.org with a 14 day response time.
The alternative to HTTP Prefer would be creating a new header (as i am
not aware of any other /approved/ header that fits the bill). This
requires writing an RFC and get it approved, which would take much
longer, and which would likely get the comment of "Why aren't you
using Prefer".
I'm more worried about "persistent-auth" than 'prefer'. We could
always
contact the draft author (jasnell(a)gmail.com) and ask for his opinion.
Y.
Even if HTTP Prefer, for whatever reason, unexpectedly does not become
a standard, i think in practice this does not impact us in any way.
Regards
Geert
--------------040008030508030100010909
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 04/16/2012 03:31 PM, Geert Jansen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8C112F.1060703@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<br>
On 04/16/2012 01:03 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">So (unless someone objects) let's go
for
option #2 (using the Prefer
<br>
header on each and every request, and release the session once
it is
<br>
not there).
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
My only objection is that you implement a draft spec and
implement a
<br>
header without even bothering to register it - or asking if
there is
<br>
such an identical-purposed header with a different name which
may get
<br>
registered / is already in use somewhere.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is somewhat of a red herring though.
<br>
<br>
HTTP Prefer was created exactly for the purpose of indicating a
preference for a certain behavior of response. Have a look at
section 9.1.1 of the draft RFC for the initial preferences and
you'll see the preferences that are already registered.
<br>
<br>
HTTP Prefer also defines a registration process for the possible
values of this header. The process requires an email to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:preferences@ietf.org">preferences@ietf.org</a> with a 14
day response time.
<br>
<br>
The alternative to HTTP Prefer would be creating a new header (as
i am not aware of any other /approved/ header that fits the bill).
This requires writing an RFC and get it approved, which would take
much longer, and which would likely get the comment of "Why aren't
you using Prefer".
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm more worried about "persistent-auth" than
'prefer'. We could
always contact the draft author (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:jasnell@gmail.com">jasnell@gmail.com</a>) and ask for his
opinion.<br>
Y.<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8C112F.1060703@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<br>
Even if HTTP Prefer, for whatever reason, unexpectedly does not
become a standard, i think in practice this does not impact us in
any way.
<br>
<br>
Regards
<br>
Geert
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040008030508030100010909--
7:37 a.m.
On 04/16/2012 04:34 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> The alternative to HTTP Prefer would be creating a new header (as
i am
> not aware of any other /approved/ header that fits the bill). This
> requires writing an RFC and get it approved, which would take much
> longer, and which would likely get the comment of "Why aren't you
> using Prefer".
I'm more worried about "persistent-auth" than 'prefer'. We could
always
contact the draft author (jasnell(a)gmail.com) and ask for his opinion.
I can do this.
Regards,
Geert
4393
days inactive
4394
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Geert Jansen -
Miki Kenneth -
Oved Ourfalli -
Yaniv Kaul