Bucket Policy compatibility with S3
In the long run, yes, we want more S3 compatibility.
What were the specific things of interest right now?
It's a bit ridiculous to mark a feature request as /urgent/ when it contains no actual concrete feature request.
I feel it needs to be stated clearly: our RGW policy implementation will never be 100% compatible with AWS/S3. In some respects we'll be lagging AWS, in other areas an aspect of AWS policy won't be applicable to RGW, and in a few areas we may add policy that is now found in AWS--for example, we're adding 'group' policy which AWS has discussed but has not (yet) implemented.
We should frame the discussion in terms of specific areas in which we want to be compatible.
What is the next action here? Agree on specific compatibility?
Will we be able to agree on what that is, test that it's so, and make adjustments this week? Who is going to lead this discussion?
Ah, sorry. I think this bz is just the RFE for initial bucket policy. I'll confirm, and maybe re-title this.
QE already has a list of suppported policy use cases, and shouldn't go outside it.
I don't know anything about RGW Lifecycle.
What, concretely, do you need info about? I had no involvement in S3 LifeCycle and I'm not competent to say that we support it or don't support it. Also it doesn't belong under a task for bucket policies. There's some stuff related to it in the git log, Abhishek from SuSE apparently worked on it, and Yehudah reverted some version of it.
Doc template filled out.
Also, I approve of this doc change!
We only support expiration transitions, we do not support transitions to different storage policies -
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.