Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Evaluate 'DRS plus Passport' design for use in results retrieval #25

Open
ianfore opened this issue Feb 2, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

Evaluate 'DRS plus Passport' design for use in results retrieval #25

ianfore opened this issue Feb 2, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@ianfore
Copy link
Collaborator

ianfore commented Feb 2, 2021

The SRAExample notebook might be a good test for the 'DRS plus Passport' design in that it goes all the way through to using a second DRS server to get results files. Question is, who the passport broker would be for authz for the second DRS server?

The authz one is looking for is likely some construct within the WES server – that construct would be ‘project’ in the SB case – though ultimately the authorization is to access storage owned by that project. Currently getting that authorization is not a problem. The WES instance knows about the relationship internally – so authentication to the DRS server, using the same credentials as for the WES, gives you access to the files.

Answering: “who the passport broker would be for authz for the second DRS server?” : it seems to me the 80% answer would be - the passport broker for the WES service. But are Passport brokers for WES servers in scope?

Might be worth running that through the 'DRS plus Passport' design.

The other 20% (a guess) would be where WES is writing the results out to some other DRS server. Haven't seen/tried that yet. Not thinking it's the first urgency. Again seems to me your design would handle it. Not ruling out it should be a test case?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant