From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E6C19AA6A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:15:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E296135F9D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:15:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:15:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 155AA43E6C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:15:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <152e05b7-869a-ef91-f40e-635db9e5b3d9@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:15:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20231117114011.834002-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20231117114011.834002-21-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <378d41123f5a389d7426034b04d435cdb31fda2e.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> From: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <378d41123f5a389d7426034b04d435cdb31fda2e.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 2.086 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -3.265 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 pve-manager 20/33] sdn: ipam: add ipam panel X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:15:58 -0000 On 11/17/23 16:04, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote: > I wonder if this panel could be integrated in zone panel (accessible > from the tree). I fear that this might overload the panel a bit. > as It's not related to the sdn configuration itself. (and don't need > sdn reload) > > I think yhis could allow to give permissions to user to manage ips in > the zone, without need to access to datacenter panel I agree with this general sentiment though I'm not sure whether adding it to Zone might be a good solution. Doesn't the user then still require access to the Datacenter panel (since Zone is included there as well). Also another point was not adding any specific new permissions for now.