Are we planning on updating the security section in Kafka documentation?
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Magnus, > > Yes, you are absolutely right. I have fixed the wiki page. Thank you for > pointing it out. > > Regards, > > Rajini > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Magnus Edenhill <mag...@edenhill.se> wrote: > >> Rajini, >> >> I think I found a small documentation error on the KIP-43 wiki page, it >> says the SASL framing size is int16, but I believe it should be int32. >> >> Can you verify? >> >> Regards, >> Magnus >> >> >> 2016-04-25 15:38 GMT+02:00 Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>: >> >> > Magnus, >> > >> > I have updated KIP-43 to include a section with the handshake >> > request/response format. Have also added some more text to distinguish >> the >> > actual authentication flow from the Kafka handshake/request flow. >> > >> > Thank you, >> > >> > Rajini >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Magnus Edenhill <mag...@edenhill.se> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Rajini, >> > > >> > > the KIP wiki is a bit unclear on the protocol changes. >> > > Could you document the proposed Kafka protocol requests&responses in >> the >> > > standard format (as on "A guide to the Kafka protocol"). >> > > This information should also be added to that page when the KIP is >> > > accepted. >> > > I think it would also be good to clarify what SASL handshake means, if >> > that >> > > is the Kafka-leved SASL mechanism handshake or the opaque SASL data >> > > handshake performed by the SASL libraries. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Magnus >> > > >> > > 2016-04-19 17:20 GMT-07:00 Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io>: >> > > >> > > > Just to close the loop on this. Discussed with Magnus offline on how >> > > KIP-43 >> > > > and KIP-35 can play together. We agreed upon the following proposal. >> > > > >> > > > On a SASL port, >> > > > >> > > > client sends: >> > > > >> > > > ApiVersionRequest (optional), SaslHandshakeRequest, SASL tokens >> > (size >> > > > delimited as being done now), regular api requests >> > > > >> > > > client receives: >> > > > >> > > > ApiVersionResponse (optional), SaslHandshakeResponse, SASL tokens >> > > (size >> > > > delimited as being done now), regular api responses >> > > > >> > > > The format of SaslHandshakeRequest is what's currently described in >> > > > KIP-43. There >> > > > will be some minor tweaks on ApiVersionResponse, which Magnus will >> > follow >> > > > up in the KIP-35 thread itself. >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > >> > > > Jun >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Rajini Sivaram < >> > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I have updated the PR (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/812) >> and >> > > > > KIP-43 >> > > > > to use standard Kafka format for the new request/response added by >> > > > KIP-43. >> > > > > I haven't changed the overall structure of the Java code. Feedback >> is >> > > > > appreciated. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > >> > > > > Rajini >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Jun, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Comments inline. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes, that should be fine right? Since the new api key will >> start >> > > with >> > > > > a 0 >> > > > > > > byte, it actually guarantees that it's different from 0x60 (1st >> > > byte >> > > > in >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > > old protocol) even if we change the request version id in the >> > > future. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, this is true. Also, the GSS API library will throw an >> > exception >> > > if >> > > > > the >> > > > > > first byte is not 0x60 (for the case where newer clients connect >> to >> > > > older >> > > > > > brokers): >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/frohoff/jdk8u-dev-jdk/blob/master/src/share/classes/sun/security/jgss/GSSHeader.java#L97 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > And the DEFECTIVE_TOKEN status code is specified in both RFC >> > 2743[1] >> > > > and >> > > > > > RFC 5653[2]. Section 3.1 of RFC 2743 specifies that the token tag >> > > > > consists >> > > > > > of the following elements, in order: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. 0x60 -- Tag for [APPLICATION 0] SEQUENCE; indicates that >> > > > > > -- constructed form, definite length encoding follows. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. Token length octets ... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ismael >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] Generic Security Service Application Program Interface >> Version >> > 2, >> > > > > > Update 1: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2743 >> > > > > > [2] Generic Security Service API Version 2: Java Bindings Update: >> > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5653 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ismael >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Regards, >> > > > > >> > > > > Rajini >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > >> > Rajini >> > >> > > > > -- > Regards, > > Rajini
