Repository navigation
Fixing teams ownership for core authn - #48135
Conversation
fb2ce8f to
6320f71
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, added 2 minor comments. But if you prefer to merge this ASAP and discuss those details later, it is fine with me.
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml | ||
| - area/test-framework | ||
| - area/token-exchange/subject-impersonation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the area/token-exchange/subject-impersonation be rather in core-authn instead of core-clients ? As AFAIK the subject-impersonation is going to be addressed by core-authn #38336 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO I would share all the token-exchange or nothing, having only the token-exchange/subject-impersonation is a bit strange. Don't know how much code this feature will be in the end, but I don't think it will add a lot of complexity for the TE in general.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's keep it simple for now and only have token-exchange - for subject-impersonation that can be sub-divided into parts that are in each core team (for example permissions and user management part would be a core-iam thing).
| - area/authentication | ||
| - area/core | ||
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The SAML is conceptually protocols thing. At the same time, some help from core-authn might be good as @rmartinc is probably most knowledgeable regarding SAML codebase. But I guess from the long term, it is supposed to be "protocols" and hence you removed from core-authn ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SAML is very much in the protocols team ownership, but that is not saying other core teams can't help.
| - area/authentication | ||
| - area/core | ||
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, as @mposolda says, maybe it's better to share saml for the moment.
| - area/identity-brokering | ||
| - area/saml | ||
| - area/test-framework | ||
| - area/token-exchange/subject-impersonation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO I would share all the token-exchange or nothing, having only the token-exchange/subject-impersonation is a bit strange. Don't know how much code this feature will be in the end, but I don't think it will add a lot of complexity for the TE in general.
Signed-off-by: stianst <stianst@gmail.com>
6320f71 to
63be43e
Compare
Signed-off-by: stianst <stianst@gmail.com>
We need to have a chat to discuss how we break things up in more detail, but the changes that where recently merged to this file contained quite a few inaccurate things.