Discussion looks to have slowed down and it was a bit of a long road, so I’ll
summarize where we ended up.
POST,GET /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/
PUT /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id}
{"id": 1,
"name": "name1",
"description": "description1",
"cdnId": 1,
"servers": [1,2,...n],
"lastUpdated": "",
}
DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id}
— DS->CAG Assignments —
PUT/POST /deliveryservices
Add optional list of assigned CAGs to the delivery service struct
— Retrieving Server<->DS Assignments —
GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers
Will return a list of explicit server assignments unioned with servers
assigned through CAGs. (Full server details)
POST /api/$version/deliveryservices/:xmlId/servers
Will accept a list of explicit server assignments (server names) as it does
today.
> On May 22, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - TRITON UK BIDCO
> LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco)
> <efrie...@cisco.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Sorry, should have been more clear. I was thinking about a case where there
> was no explicit assignment, only a CAG assignment.
>
> -Eric
>
>> On May 22, 2019, at 9:06 AM, Fieck, Brennan <brennan_fi...@comcast.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If someone POSTs to a DS to try and remove the name of a server that is
>>> assigned via a CAG, the call will return success but neither the explicit
>>> assignment nor the CAG assignments will be changes
>>
>> Why not remove the explicit assignment? IMO, a success response tells the
>> client that the operation succeeded, so doing that when in fact it didn't is
>> a confusing lie from the client's perspective.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - TRITON UK BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus
>> (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) <efrie...@cisco.com.INVALID>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:36 PM
>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PROPOSAL] Cache Assignment Group REST API
>>
>> GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers
>> Will return a list of explicit server assignments unioned with servers
>> assigned through CAGs. (Full server details)
>>
>> POST /api/$version/deliveryservices/:xmlId/servers
>> Aside: Why does this one use xmlId when all these other endpoint use only
>> ID? Its rather inconsistent…
>>
>> Will accept a list of explicit server assignments (server names) as it does
>> today.
>> If someone POSTs to a DS with the name of a server that is assigned via a
>> CAG, it will also become explicitly assigned to that DS.
>> If someone POSTs to a DS to try and remove the name of a server that is
>> assigned via a CAG, the call will return success but neither the explicit
>> assignment nor the CAG assignments will be changes
>>
>>
>> I was initially worried of someone doing a GET from :id/servers and then
>> POSTing the response to :xmlId/servers but the formats are somehow so
>> different thats not really a concern.
>>
>> —Eric
>>
>>
>>> On May 21, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rawlin beat me to it.
>>>
>>> /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers <-- tenancy is already checked
>>> (i hope) on this route.
>>>
>>> imo if CAGs are introduced, the handler associated with that route ^^ needs
>>> to be modified to take CAGs into account (in addition to explicit server
>>> assignments)
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:52 AM Rawlin Peters <rawlin.pet...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm hesitant to add a server list to the delivery service object just
>>>> because it's a lot of data (same with adding a delivery service list
>>>> to the server object). Two of the things that are done the most in
>>>> Traffic Ops are:
>>>> 1. adding new servers
>>>> 2. adding new delivery services
>>>> Every time we do one of those things we're already increasing the size
>>>> of the CRConfig at an M*N rate, so by adding a server list into the DS
>>>> object and a list of DSes into the server object would gives those
>>>> objects the same problem as the CRConfig. By adding an aggregation
>>>> between the two of them -- the Cache Assignment Group -- it is more
>>>> reasonable to include the list of CAGs in the server and DS objects.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Eric's common questions (which DSes are assigned to a
>>>> server and which servers are assigned to a DS), but we do already have
>>>> specific endpoints for those two questions:
>>>> /api/$version/servers/:id/deliveryservices
>>>> /api/$version/deliveryservices/:id/servers
>>>>
>>>> Those endpoints would have to start taking into account any CAGs.
>>>>
>>>> - Rawlin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:45 AM Fieck, Brennan
>>>> <brennan_fi...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be a fan of adding a servers array to DS objects. We don't need the
>>>> whole server object in each entry, just some identifying information (name,
>>>> id, type should be sufficient I would think).
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri - TRITON UK BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter
>>>> Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco) <efrie...@cisco.com.INVALID>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:09 AM
>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PROPOSAL] Cache Assignment Group REST API
>>>>>
>>>>> I like this, but I think we still have a challenge with tenancy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two of the very common questions with these groups are
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Which servers are assigned to this Delivery Service (either
>>>> individually or through a CAG).
>>>>>
>>>>> Using the existing proposed API, users would first need to call
>>>> /deliveryService?id= to get a list of CAGs. Then iterate of that list of
>>>> CAGs calling /server?cag= for each name/id. Not very user friendly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, this question could be answered using
>>>> /servers?deliveryService=<dsId>
>>>>> But /server still needs to be tenant-aware
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont see a way to put it into the more tenant-friendly
>>>> /deliveryservice endpoint without adding a “servers” field to the existing
>>>> DS query params/response.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Which delivery services are assigned to this server (needed for
>>>> remap.config generation but operators also like to see this info)
>>>>> This could be answered with
>>>>> /servers?id=<serverId>
>>>>> If we are OK adding the DS assignments into the server as well
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly to 1, it could also go into /deliveryservice with the
>>>> addition of an assigned servers field in the response.
>>>>>
>>>>> —Eric
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 19, 2019, at 7:33 PM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like where Rawlin is headed and I think you can take it even one
>>>>>> step simpler. What if you moved the cacheAssignmentGroup into the
>>>>>> server data instead? So it would look like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Server:
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> "id": 1,
>>>>>> "cags": ["foo", "quux"]
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Delivery Service:
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> "xmlId": "bar",
>>>>>> "cags": ["foo","bar"],
>>>>>> "tenantId": 7,
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we need it for performance, we could map names to numbers under the
>>>>>> hood, of course. This way tenancy works the way we want it to, and we
>>>>>> can use capabilities to restrict who can adjust server assignments,
>>>>>> which are, as has been observed, multi-tenant. A delivery service is
>>>>>> assigned to a server if one of its cags matches one of the server's
>>>>>> cags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For some bonus utility, you could allow most mutating operations to
>>>>>> operate on cags as well, for example to set a group admin-down at
>>>>>> once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the future, if we need really fine control, we could potentially
>>>>>> allow boolean logic on the cag fields, which might be useful for
>>>>>> things like "cags": ["coreprod", "newprod & !canary"], which would
>>>>>> match any server that had a coreprod tag, or a server with newprod but
>>>>>> not canary. It could be used for managing "requirements", since not
>>>>>> all caches might support the same set or versions of plugins
>>>>>> (especially during a rollout of an upgrade). Imagine "cags":
>>>>>> ["prod_east & urisigning16"] for ensuring that the DS is only assigned
>>>>>> to servers with the correct version of urisigning. That sort of logic
>>>>>> could let operators set up very powerful and flexible assignment
>>>>>> systems, even in excess of what we can think up today. We'd need to
>>>>>> design that feature carefully, though, since we probably want to be
>>>>>> able to ask questions like "list all the DSs with the newprod cag",
>>>>>> which can be tricky to answer if we get too clever on our fields.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 2:20 PM Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think what Rawlin has proposed makes a lot of sense and would
>>>> simplify
>>>>>>> things w.r.t. tenancy. I like simplification. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jeremy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 1:59 PM Rawlin Peters <
>>>> rawlin.pet...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I had a different idea
>>>>>>>> about CAGs w.r.t. tenancy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the CAGs shouldn't contain the list of delivery services
>>>> they're
>>>>>>>> assigned to, and instead, the delivery service is enhanced to include
>>>>>>>> the list of CAGs its assigned to. Also, instead of a CAG being
>>>>>>>> tenantable, maybe we just keep tenancy in the delivery service so
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> if a tenant has access to a delivery service they are free to change
>>>>>>>> their DS's CAGs at will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we'd end up with something like:
>>>>>>>> CAG:
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> "name": "foo",
>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,3],
>>>>>>>> ... (no tenant ID)
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> Delivery Service:
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> "xmlId": "bar",
>>>>>>>> "cacheAssignmentGroups": [7, 8, 9],
>>>>>>>> "tenantId": 7,
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking that "logical server groups" shouldn't really be a
>>>>>>>> tenantable thing, because they are inherently multi-tenant, and we
>>>>>>>> might end up creating a crazy number of overlapping CAGs for all
>>>>>>>> tenants. Adding a new server into multiple overlapping CAGs per
>>>> tenant
>>>>>>>> might get out of hand. This would allow us to keep the total number
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> "logical server groups" down but still prevent a tenant from seeing
>>>>>>>> another tenant's CAGs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Rawlin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:18 AM Jeremy Mitchell <
>>>> mitchell...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yeah, maybe i overcomplicated it with my example and got it wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if the CAG belongs to tenant 2 and john is the only one that
>>>> belongs to
>>>>>>>>> tenant 2 (sally belongs to 2.1 and linda to 2.1.1), then john is
>>>> really
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> only one that can modify the CAG. and since the CAG only contains
>>>> DS's
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> tenant 2, 2.1 or 2.2, he can modify ALL the ds's in that CAG...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so disregard what i said in my example about what sally and linda
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> modify because they can't if you add tenantId to CAG.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so i think
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. add a tenantID to a CAG
>>>>>>>>> 2. enforce user tenancy on CAG post/put/delete
>>>>>>>>> 3. on post/put, ensure the tenancy of the assigned ds's are
>>>> compatible
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the CAG tenant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> jeremy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:08 AM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri -
>>>> TRITON UK
>>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco)
>>>>>>>>> <efrie...@cisco.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy-
>>>>>>>>>> Going back to your original example of the tree below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If DS baz is assigned to tenantId 2, then tenantIds 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.2
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>> modify baz, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a CAG is created also with tenantId2, then I would expect the
>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> behavior- only John as part of the 2 tenant can modify that CAG.
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, this CAG could only contain DS’ that belong to our are
>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>>>> of tenant 2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This seems to match existing behavior more closely?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> —Eric
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 16, 2019, at 10:43 AM, Jeremy Mitchell <
>>>> mitchell...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no, capabilities are very different than tenancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities dictate what you "can do" - i.e. you can modify CAG's
>>>>>>>> if you
>>>>>>>>>>> have the cacheassignmentgroup-write capability
>>>>>>>>>>> tenancy dictates what you "can do it to". in this case, if CAG's
>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> tenantId and you have the cacheassignmentgroup-write capability,
>>>>>>>> then you
>>>>>>>>>>> can ONLY modify CAG's that fall in your tenancy scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> although different, capabilities and tenancy work hand in hand to
>>>>>>>> limit
>>>>>>>>>>> what a user can do (permissions) and what they can do that to
>>>>>>>> (scope).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> because CAG's have an embedded tenantable resource (delivery
>>>>>>>> services),
>>>>>>>>>>> this makes it a bit trickier. not only should tenancy dictate
>>>> which
>>>>>>>> CAG's
>>>>>>>>>>> can be modified by the user, it should also dictate how those
>>>> CAG's
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be modified (i.e. which delivery services can be impacted by a
>>>>>>>>>> modification)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:13 PM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri -
>>>> TRITON
>>>>>>>> UK
>>>>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco)
>>>>>>>>>>> <efrie...@cisco.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Fieck, Brennan <
>>>>>>>> brennan_fi...@comcast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You could just set tenant permissions based on the owning tenant
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Delivery Service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should the child of a tenant be able to modify cache
>>>> assignments of
>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>>> tenant's Delivery Services?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>> EF> Isn’t this what the capabilities are for? If a user has
>>>>>>>>>>>> “cacheassignmentgroup-write” capability, then they can modify the
>>>>>>>>>>>> assignments for any delivery services in that tenant
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 1:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PROPOSAL] Cache Assignment Group REST
>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example tenant tree:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> root
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 1 (foo)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 1.1 (bar)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 2 (baz)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 2.1 (bee)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- 2.1.1 (bang)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 2.2 (bop)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the foo ds belongs to tenant 1, bar ds belongs to tenant 1.1,
>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a CGA is created with tenantId=2 which means it can only have
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> baz,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bee,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bang and bop ds's in it. John belongs to the 2 tenant and adds
>>>> all
>>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>>>>>>> (baz,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bee, bang, bop).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sally belongs to the 2.1 tenant, and only sees [bee, bang] in
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> CGA
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does an update with [], so it blows away bee (the ds in her
>>>>>>>> tenant) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bang (plus any child tenant ds's)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linda belongs to the 2.1.1 tenant, and sees [] in the CGA
>>>> (because
>>>>>>>>>> sally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blew them all away) and does an update with [goo]. now the CAG
>>>> has
>>>>>>>> baz
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goo ds's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so basically, a user can only modify the ds's that they can see
>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their tenant (and subtenants). and a CAG can only have certain
>>>>>>>> ds's in
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on it's tenant...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I "think" that would work....sounds a bit complicated but i
>>>> really
>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like tenancy probably belongs on a CAG because of its
>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ds's. plus, then it would be nice to create CAG's for tenants.
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> create a trial tenant and some trial ds's and some trial users
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no choice but to use the trial CAG that has 2 caches in it
>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:01 PM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri -
>>>>>>>> TRITON UK
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <efrie...@cisco.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the tenantId on the cacheassignmentgroup does not match
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenantID on one of the included delivery services?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 15, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <
>>>>>>>> mitchell...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got an idea. If you made a cachegroupassignment a
>>>> "tenantable"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resource,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you could avoid the problem i mentioned above (having ds's
>>>>>>>> hidden for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenancy reasons). so this instead:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tenantId: 2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30, 35]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this has a nice benefit as well. i.e. certain tenants (content
>>>>>>>>>>>> providers)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have access to certain cachegroupassignment configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:43 PM Jeremy Mitchell <
>>>>>>>>>>>> mitchell...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just be careful that a GET
>>>> /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups?id=4
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return a filtered list of delivery services because of
>>>> tenancy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30], <-- maybe there are really
>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>>>>> delivery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> services but 2 of them (40 and 50) are hidden from you due to
>>>>>>>>>> tenancy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a subsequent PUT with the same json (plus a new delivery
>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is added):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30, 35]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't wipe out 40 and 50.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you do this, it begs the question. how do you remove ALL
>>>> ds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assignments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a cache assignment group?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, how about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups?id=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:22 PM Eric Friedrich -X (efriedri
>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> TRITON
>>>>>>>>>>>> UK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIDCO LIMITED c/o Alter Domus (UK) Limited -OBO at Cisco)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <efrie...@cisco.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feature description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mail Thread:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/35ee49f4be1c30ff4a12c71e02897aee0e0d3d2f356640ab69ba247e@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/35ee49f4be1c30ff4a12c71e02897aee0e0d3d2f356640ab69ba247e@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dev.trafficcontrol.apache.org>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Github Issue:
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/issues/3557
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API Proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> POST,GET /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PUT /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {"id": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "name1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "description": "description1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cdnId": 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "servers": [1,2,...n],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "deliveryServices": [10, 20, 30],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lastUpdated": "",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DELETE /api/1.4/cacheassignmentgroups/{id}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- No request body
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This API is tenant-aware by delivery service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Query Parameters (all optional)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If multiple filter parameters are specified, they are AND'd
>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - id: Filter for a specific entry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - servers: Filter all entries containing this server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - deliveryService: Filter all entries containing this DS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - limit: Return maximum number of entries (default 20)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - page: Return page n, with each page having limit number of
>>>>>>>>>> entries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (default 0)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Body Parameters:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - id: Numeric identifier, automatically assigned on
>>>> creation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Read-Only,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed in PUT/POST]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - name: Name of the cache assignment group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - description Description of the cache assignment group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - cdnId: ID of the CDN the cache assignment group belongs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - servers: List of server IDs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - deliveryServices: List of delivery service IDs. All caches
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers list will be assigned to these delivery services
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - lastUpdated: Timestamp this cache assignment group was
>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> updated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Read-Only, not allowed in PUT/POST]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
