generated from redhat-developer/new-project-template
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
RHIDP-5483: Update Authorization Preface #1052
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
Open
linfraze
wants to merge
3
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
RHIDP-5483
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -10,4 +10,3 @@ include::artifacts/attributes.adoc[] | |
//{abstract} | ||
|
||
include::assemblies/assembly-enabling-authentication.adoc[] | ||
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For clarity, consider not using "Administrators" alone. We have different admin roles: "platform engineer aka. OCP administrator" / "RHDH administrator" / "RBAC administrator".
The distinction is also missing in the previous content.
It would be nice if the introduction would clarify the roles:
(A) Platform engineer / OpenShift user with developer privileges. Roles in authorization:
(B) RBAC policy administrator = RHDH user with manager priveleges on RBAC policies. Roles in authorization:
(C) RHDH administrator => this is a confusing role, with 2 indentities:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@themr0c so which role / permission is required to authorize users to perform actions and define what users can do in RHDH?
If you're saying there are conditions and various admins can do this in various ways, then I agree that we should probably describe those roles / perms in detail, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the statement with the general Administrators term is not true and valid.
I think we definitely need some further exploration and enhancement there, but this PR is intended to be a copyedit to comply with Minimalism and grammar standards rather than a deep content edit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also think it might be ok to speak more generally in the assembly, as long as our content in technically accurate, and then outline each of these roles / responsibilities in more detail in modules (or a reference module) within the assembly. Think about how a user / particular persona would navigate the docs to find out who, what, and how to authorize users.