On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:08:50AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 08:32:20AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> OK, I can live with that as well. So we'll go in the direction of two >> parameters then: >> - scram_channel_binding, which can use "prefer" (default), "require" or >> "disable". >> - scram_channel_binding_name, developer option to choose the type of >> channel binding, with "tls-unique" (default) and "tls-server-end-point". >> We could also remove the prefix "scram_". Ideas of names are welcome. > > scram_channel_binding_method?
Or scram_channel_binding_type. The first sentence of RFC 5929 uses this term. > Do we really know someone is going to want to actually specify the > channel binding type? If it is only testing, maybe we don't need to > document this parameter. Keeping everything documented is useful as well for new developers, as they need to guess less from the code. So I would prefer seeing both connection parameters documented, and mentioning directly in the docs if a parameter is for developers or not. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
