You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem?/Why is this needed
gRPC spec currently has/had this code (below), which is not captured in the KEP. It is a remnant of KEP discussions that were removed from v1alpha1.
enumAnonymousBucketAccessMode {
UnknownBucketAccessMode=0;
// Default, disallow uncredentialed access to the backend storage.Private=1;
// Read only, uncredentialed users can call ListBucket and GetObject.ReadOnly=2;
// Write only, uncredentialed users can only call PutObject.WriteOnly=3;
// Read/Write, uncredentialed users can read objects as well as PutObject.ReadWrite=4;
}
Describe the solution you'd like in detail
COSI will remove this unused proto spec, but we should also consider whether/when to start designing this feature again in the future.
@BlaineEXE remembers 1 Rook user who has mentioned a desire for anonymous access for ObjectBucketClaims.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Alternative that is still possible: if COSI believes this feature is not widely supported and not a good target for the portable API, COSI could recommend that drivers implement this via storage classes, or COSI could suggest instead that all accessors need a BucketAccess, even users external to the k8s cluster.
Additional context
Likely, all users of buckets within kubernetes can use a BucketAccess to access any bucket (provided cross-namespace access is set up).
This feature might therefore be more important when considering bucket users outside of the Kubernetes cluster where BucketAccess self-service isn't available.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
BlaineEXE
changed the title
Investigate support for bucket anonymous access modes
Research support for bucket anonymous access modes
Jul 25, 2024
shanduur
pushed a commit
to shanduur/container-object-storage-interface-api
that referenced
this issue
Aug 2, 2024
Enhancement
Is your feature request related to a problem?/Why is this needed
gRPC spec currently has/had this code (below), which is not captured in the KEP. It is a remnant of KEP discussions that were removed from v1alpha1.
Describe the solution you'd like in detail
COSI will remove this unused proto spec, but we should also consider whether/when to start designing this feature again in the future.
@BlaineEXE remembers 1 Rook user who has mentioned a desire for anonymous access for ObjectBucketClaims.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Alternative that is still possible: if COSI believes this feature is not widely supported and not a good target for the portable API, COSI could recommend that drivers implement this via storage classes, or COSI could suggest instead that all accessors need a BucketAccess, even users external to the k8s cluster.
Additional context
Likely, all users of buckets within kubernetes can use a BucketAccess to access any bucket (provided cross-namespace access is set up).
This feature might therefore be more important when considering bucket users outside of the Kubernetes cluster where BucketAccess self-service isn't available.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: