On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 03:02:30PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> There is still one open item pending for SCRAM that has not been
> treated which is mentioned here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b081887e-1712-3aa4-7dbe-e012333d5...@iki.fi
> When doing an authentication with SASL, the server decides what is the
> mechanism that the client has to use. As SCRAM-SHA-256 is only one of
> such mechanisms, it would be nice to have something more generic and
> have the server return to the client a list of protocols that the
> client can choose from. And also the server achnowledge which protocol
> is going to be used.
> Note that RFC4422 has some content on the matter
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4422#section-3.1:
>    Mechanism negotiation is protocol specific.
>    Commonly, a protocol will specify that the server advertises
>    supported and available mechanisms to the client via some facility
>    provided by the protocol, and the client will then select the "best"
>    mechanism from this list that it supports and finds suitable.
> So once the server sends back the list of mechanisms that are
> supported, the client is free to use what it wants.
> On HEAD, a 'R' message with AUTH_REQ_SASL followed by
> SCRAM_SHA256_NAME is sent to let the client know what is the mechanism
> to use for the SASL exchange. In the future, this should be extended
> so as a list of names is sent, for example a comma-separated list, but
> we are free to choose the format we want here. With this list at hand,
> the client can then choose the protocol it thinks is the best. Still,
> there is a gap with our current implementation because the server
> expects the first message from the client to have a SCRAM format, but
> that's true only if SCRAM-SHA-256 is used as mechanism.
> In order to cover this gap, it seems to me that we need to have an
> intermediate state before the server is switched to FE_SCRAM_INIT so
> as the mechanism used is negotiated between the two parties. Once the
> protocol negotiation is done, the server can then move on with the
> mechanism to use. This would be important in the future to allow more
> SASL mechanisms to work. I am adding an open item for that.

If any SCRAM open item is a beta blocker, it's this one.  (But SASLprep is
also in or near that status.)  Post-beta wire protocol changes are bad,
considering beta is normally the time for projects like pgjdbc and npgsql to
start adapting to such changes.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Heikki,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to