[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5155?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15245342#comment-15245342 ]
Alexander Rukletsov commented on MESOS-5155: -------------------------------------------- I'd also vote for Adam's option 1, with the addition that if only old types are used, a deprecation warning is issued. Regarding `READ_QUOTA` — I think we can add it later if necessary. As [~zhitao] points out, we don't currently have ACLs for read-only actions. > Consolidate authorization actions for quota. > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: MESOS-5155 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5155 > Project: Mesos > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Alexander Rukletsov > Assignee: Zhitao Li > Labels: mesosphere > > We should have just a single authz action: {{UPDATE_QUOTA_WITH_ROLE}}. It was > a mistake in retrospect to introduce multiple actions. > Actions that are not symmetrical are register/teardown and dynamic > reservations. The way they are implemented in this way is because entities > that do one action differ from entities that do the other. For example, > register framework is issued by a framework, teardown by an operator. What is > a good way to identify a framework? A role it runs in, which may be different > each launch and makes no sense in multi-role frameworks setup or better a > sort of a group id, which is its principal. For dynamic reservations and > persistent volumes, they can be both issued by frameworks and operators, > hence similar reasoning applies. > Now, quota is associated with a role and set only by operators. Do we need to > care about principals that set it? Not that much. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)