On 13/04/17 04:54, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
By looking at the them, and unless I'm missing something, I don't see
how the extra information for the future implementation of channel binding
would be added (without changing the protocol). Relevant part is:
The message body is a list of SASL authentication mechanisms, in the
server's order of preference. A zero byte is required as terminator after
the last authentication mechanism name. For each mechanism, there is the
Name of a SASL authentication mechanism.
How do you plan to implement it, in future versions, without modifying
the AuthenticationSASL message? Or is it OK to add new fields to a message
in future PostgreSQL versions, without considering that a protocol change?
I don't quite understand the complain here, it is perfectly fine to
add as many null-terminated names as you want with this model. The
patches would make the server just send one mechanism name now, but
nothing prevents the addition of more.
I think I explained in my previous reply, but just in case: there
are two lists here: SCRAM mechanism and channel binding mechanisms. They
are orthogonal, you could pick them separately (only with the -PLUS
variants, of course). All two (both SCRAM and channel binding
mechanisms) have to be advertised by the server.
Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: