Hi Piotr,

In some cases it may not be possible or viable to create new scope for

each resource id e.g. short lived resources.

Why wouldn't that be possible? What type of short-lived resources did you
have in mind?

The typical use case I've seen is for a Cloud platform to decide to offer a
new type of database or analytics or messaging service, or a new type of
runtime for example. Before that new resource is offered on the platform,
their resource provider needs to get on board, get a user id, auth
credentials defined in UAA etc... You probably also need to define how
you're going to meter that new resource and the pricing for it.

Couldn't a scope be created in UAA at that time along all these other on
boarding steps?

Another reason why I'm not sure about short lived resources, is that
although you may decide to stop offering a type a resource at some point,
once you've metered it, and sent a bill for it to a customer, I don't think
you can really 'forget' about its existence anymore... So in that sense I'm
not sure how it can be 'short lived'.

Some flexibility would also help to accommodate changes related to

grouping resources by type as discussed in [1].

We discussed two options in [1]:
a) support a resource_type in addition to resource_id for grouping many
resource_ids under a single type
b) a common resource_id for several resources (something like 'node' for
all your versions of Node.js build packs for example)

Since option (a) is not implemented at this point and Issue #38 is actually
assigned to a 'future' milestone, AIUI resource providers need to use
option (b) with a common resource_id for multiple resources. Is creating a
scope for that common id still too much of a burden then?

[1] - https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/cf-abacus/issues/38

Thoughts?

- Jean-Sebastien

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Piotr Przybylski <piotrp(a)us.ibm.com> wrote:

Hi Sebastien,

That OAuth token should include:
- a user id uniquely identifying that resource provider;
- an OAuth scope named like abacus.usage.<resource_id>.write

What kind of customization of the above do you plan to expose? In some
cases it may not be possible or viable to create new scope for each
resource id e.g. short lived resources. The ability to either configure
scope to use for validation or provide scope 'mapping' would help to adapt
it to existing deployments. Some flexibility would also help to accommodate
changes related to grouping resources by type as discussed in [1].

[1] - https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/cf-abacus/issues/38


Piotr



[image: Inactive hide details for Jean-Sebastien Delfino ---10/07/2015
12:30:05 AM---Hi Piotr, > what kind of authorization is required]Jean-Sebastien
Delfino ---10/07/2015 12:30:05 AM---Hi Piotr, > what kind of authorization
is required to submit usage to Abacus ?

From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino <jsdelfino(a)gmail.com>
To: "Discussions about Cloud Foundry projects and the system overall." <
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
Date: 10/07/2015 12:30 AM
Subject: [cf-dev] Re: [abacus] Usage submission authorization
------------------------------



Hi Piotr,

what kind of authorization is required to submit usage to Abacus ?
Is the oauth token used for submission [1] required to have particular

scope, specific to resource or resource provider ?

A resource provider is expected to present an OAuth token with the usage
it submits for a (service or runtime) resource.

That OAuth token should include:
- a user id uniquely identifying that resource provider;
- an OAuth scope named like abacus.usage.<resource_id>.write.

The precise naming syntax for that scope may still evolve in the next few
days as we progress with the implementation of user story 101703426 [1].

Is there a different scope required to submit runtimes usage (like cf

bridge) versus other services or its possible to use single scope for all
the submissions

I'd like to handle runtimes and services consistently as they're basically
just different types of resources, i.e. one scope per 'service' resource,
one scope per 'runtime' resource.

We're still working on the detailed design and implementation, but I'm not
sure we'd want to share scopes across (service and runtime) resource
providers as that'd allow a resource provider to submit usage for resources
owned by another...

@assk / @sasrin, anything I missed? Thoughts?

-- Jean-Sebastien


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Piotr Przybylski <*piotrp(a)us.ibm.com*
<piotrp(a)us.ibm.com>> wrote:

Hi,
what kind of authorization is required to submit usage to Abacus ?
Is the oauth token used for submission [1] required to have particular
scope, specific to resource or resource provider ? Is there a different
scope required to submit runtimes usage (like cf bridge) versus other
services or its possible to use single scope for all the submissions ?


[1] - *https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/101703426*
<https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/101703426>

Piotr