Thank you all for the feedback. Closing this voting thread to continue discussions on the updated KIP in the discuss thread.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > I'd also like to see clarification regarding the ZK structures. > Currently they appear as if user-quotas and client-quotas are > equivalent, but this will obviously need to change. > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > Rajini, > > > > The new proposal sounds good to me too. My only question is what happens > to > > those existing quotas on client-id. Do we just treat them as the quota > for > > that client-id under ANONYMOUS user name? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> Jay, > >> > >> Thank you for the quick feedback. It shouldn't be too hard since I had > a PR > >> earlier along these lines anyway. > >> > >> Jun, are you ok with this approach? If everyone agrees, I will close > this > >> vote, update the KIP and give some more time for discussions. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> > >> > This sounds a lot better to me--hopefully it isn't too much harder! I > do > >> > think if it is possible to do this directly that will be better for > users > >> > than having an intermediate step since we always have to work through > >> > migrating people who have setup quotas already from the old way to the > >> new > >> > way. > >> > > >> > -Jay > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > >> > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I do think client-id is a valid and useful grouping for quotas even > in > >> > > secure clusters - but only if clientA of user1 is treated as a > >> different > >> > > client-id from clientA of user2. Grouping of clients of a user > enables > >> > > users to allocate their quota effectively to their clients (eg. > >> guarantee > >> > > that critical event processing clients are not throttled by auditing > >> > > clients). When the KIP was down-sized to support only user-based > >> quotas, > >> > I > >> > > was hoping that we could extend it at a later time to enable > >> hierarchical > >> > > quotas. But I understand that it can be confusing to switch the > >> semantics > >> > > of quotas based on modes set in the brokers. So let me try once > again > >> to > >> > > promote the original KIP-55. At the time, I did have a flag to > revert > >> to > >> > > the existing client-id behavior to maintain compatibility. But > perhaps > >> > that > >> > > is not necessary. > >> > > > >> > > How does this sound? > >> > > > >> > > - Quotas may be configured for users. Sub-quotas may be > configured > >> for > >> > > client-ids of a user. Quotas may also be configured for > client-ids > >> of > >> > > users > >> > > with unlimited quota (Long.MaxValue). > >> > > - Users who don't have a quota override are allocated a > configurable > >> > > default quota. > >> > > - Client-ids without a sub-quota override share the remainder of > the > >> > > user quota if the user has a quota limit. Default quotas may be > >> > defined > >> > > for > >> > > clients of users with unlimited quota. > >> > > - For an insecure or single-user secure cluster, the existing > >> > client-id > >> > > based quota semantics can be achieved by configuring unlimited > quota > >> > for > >> > > the user and sub-quota configuration for client-id that matches > the > >> > > current > >> > > client-id quota configuration. > >> > > - For a cluster mixes both secure and insecure access, client-id > >> > quotas > >> > > can be set for unauthenticated clients (unlimited quota for > >> ANONYMOUS, > >> > > quotas for client-ids) and user quotas can be set for > authenticated > >> > > users. > >> > > - In a multi-user cluster, it is currently possible to define > quotas > >> > for > >> > > client-ids that span multiple users. This will no longer be > >> supported. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I am not crazy about modes either. An earlier proposal supported > both > >> > > > client-ids and users at the same time, and it made more sense to > me. > >> I > >> > > > believe it was dropped without proper discussion (Basically, Jun > >> > > > mentioned it is complex and Rajini agreed to drop it). We should > >> > > > probably rethink the complexity of supporting both vs the > limitations > >> > > > of "modes". > >> > > > > >> > > > As you said, we will have secure clients authenticating with users > >> and > >> > > > insecure clients authenticating with client-ids at the same time. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > >> > > > > Hey Rajini, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 1. That makes sense to me. Is that reflected in the > documentation > >> > > > anywhere > >> > > > > (I couldn't really find it)? Is there a way to discover that > >> > > definition? > >> > > > We > >> > > > > do way better when we right this stuff down so it has an > official > >> > > > > definition users and developers can work off of... > >> > > > > 2. If client id is a thing that makes sense even when you have > >> users, > >> > > why > >> > > > > would you not want to quota on it? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I am not wild about these "modes" where you boot the cluster in > >> mode > >> > X > >> > > > and > >> > > > > it behaves in one way and in mode Y and it behaves in another. > It > >> is > >> > > > > complex then for users who expect to be able to set quotas but > then > >> > > have > >> > > > to > >> > > > > be able to get access to the filesystem of the kafka nodes to > >> > discover > >> > > > what > >> > > > > mode the cluster is in to know which kind of quota is > applicable. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I guess there are two ways to think about a feature: one is the > >> > > increment > >> > > > > from where we are, and the other is the resulting state after > that > >> > > > > increment is taken. What I am asking is not "is this a low cost > >> step > >> > > from > >> > > > > where we are?" which everyone can agree that it is, but rather > >> "does > >> > > this > >> > > > > make sense as an end state--i.e. if you were starting fresh with > >> > > neither > >> > > > > users nor client ids nor quotas would you end up with this?". > >> > > > > > >> > > > > In terms of use cases, I think that we support mixing secure and > >> > > insecure > >> > > > > access on a single cluster so presumably in that case you would > >> want > >> > to > >> > > > be > >> > > > > able to quota insecure users based on client id and secure users > >> > based > >> > > on > >> > > > > user, right? Likewise, as you said, client id is a valid > grouping > >> > even > >> > > in > >> > > > > the presence of users, so it might be the case that several apps > >> that > >> > > are > >> > > > > all part of the same system might access Kafka under a single > user, > >> > but > >> > > > you > >> > > > > might have different quotas for these different apps. Basically > if > >> > > client > >> > > > > id is a valid grouping even in the presence of users (willing to > >> > debate > >> > > > > this point, btw!) then you would want to quota on it. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -Jay > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > >> > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Jay, > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> Thank you for the feedback. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> 1. I think it is good to have a single concept of identity, but > >> > > multiple > >> > > > >> ways of grouping clients for different functions. Client-id is > a > >> > > logical > >> > > > >> grouping of clients with a meaningful name that is used in > client > >> > > > metrics > >> > > > >> and logs. User principal is an authenticated user or a > grouping of > >> > > > >> unauthenticated users chosen by the broker and is used for > ACLs. > >> In > >> > my > >> > > > >> view, in a multi-user system, there is a hierarchy - user owns > >> zero > >> > or > >> > > > more > >> > > > >> clients. (principal, client-id) defines a safe group, but the > >> > shorter > >> > > > >> unsafe client-id is sufficient in client metrics and logs. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> 2. KIP-55 was initially written to support hierarchical quotas > >> > (quotas > >> > > > for > >> > > > >> user1-clientA, user2-clientA etc), but Jun's view was that the > >> > > > complexity > >> > > > >> was not justified since there is no clear requirement for this. > >> The > >> > > > >> cut-down version of the KIP is clearly a lot simpler. But I > think > >> > your > >> > > > >> suggestion is to enable non-hierarchical user quotas and > client-id > >> > > > quotas > >> > > > >> at the same time. Basically treat users and client-ids as > distinct > >> > > > entities > >> > > > >> like topics and allow quotas to be applied to each of these > >> > entities. > >> > > I > >> > > > >> agree that we want to support quotas simultaneously on > different > >> > > > entities > >> > > > >> like topics and users. I am less convinced of client-id and > user > >> > being > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> distinct entities that require separate quotas at the same > time. > >> And > >> > > > >> treating client-id and user as distinct entities makes it > harder > >> to > >> > > > >> implement hierarchical quotas in future. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> A single user system needs only client-id quotas, and > multi-tenant > >> > > > system > >> > > > >> cannot use client-id quotas since we need to guarantee that one > >> > > tenant's > >> > > > >> quotas can never be used by another tenant. I suppose a > multi-user > >> > > > cluster > >> > > > >> where users trust each other could apply separate quotas for > both > >> > > > clients > >> > > > >> and users, but I am not sure if there is a usecase that can't > be > >> > > > satisfied > >> > > > >> with just client-id based quotas for this case. Do you have a > >> > usecase > >> > > in > >> > > > >> mind where you want to apply separate quotas for clients and > users > >> > > > >> simultaneously? > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Super sorry to come in late on this one. Rajini, I had two > quick > >> > > > >> questions > >> > > > >> > I think we should be able to answer: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > 1. Do client ids make sense in a world which has users? If > >> not > >> > > > should > >> > > > >> we > >> > > > >> > unify them the way Hadoop did (without auth the user is a > >> kind > >> > of > >> > > > best > >> > > > >> > effort honor system identity). This came up in the > discussion > >> > > > thread > >> > > > >> > but I > >> > > > >> > didn't really see a crisp answer. Basically, what is the > >> > > > definition of > >> > > > >> > "client id" and what is the definition of "user" and how > do > >> the > >> > > > >> concepts > >> > > > >> > relate? > >> > > > >> > 2. If both client ids and users are sensible distinct > notions > >> > and > >> > > > we > >> > > > >> > want to maintain both, why don't we just support quotas on > >> > both? > >> > > If > >> > > > >> they > >> > > > >> > both make sense then you would have a reason to set > quotas at > >> > > both > >> > > > >> > levels. > >> > > > >> > Why have this "mode" that you set that swaps between only > >> being > >> > > > able > >> > > > >> to > >> > > > >> > use > >> > > > >> > one and the other? I should be able to set quotas at both > >> > levels. > >> > > > >> Going > >> > > > >> > forward the model we had discussed with quotas was > >> potentially > >> > > > being > >> > > > >> > able > >> > > > >> > to set quotas for many things independently (say at the > topic > >> > > > level), > >> > > > >> > and I > >> > > > >> > don't think it would make sense to extend this mode > approach > >> to > >> > > > those. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > -Jay > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > >> > > > >> > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > I would like to initiate the vote for KIP-55. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > The KIP details are here: KIP-55: Secure quotas for > >> > authenticated > >> > > > users > >> > > > >> > > < > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-55%3A+Secure+Quotas+for+Authenticated+Users > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > . > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > The JIRA KAFKA-3492 < > >> > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3492 > >> > > > >> > > >has > >> > > > >> > > a draft PR here: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1256 > . > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Thank you... > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Rajini > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> -- > >> > > > >> Regards, > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> Rajini > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Regards, > >> > > > >> > > Rajini > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> > >> Rajini > >> > -- Regards, Rajini
