Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > but without actual interoperability testing it sounds pretty > speculative to me.
I'm all for interoperability testing. When we have multiple implementations of TLS using different libraries with various versions of PostgreSQL and libpq and are able to test those against other versions of PostgreSQL and libpq compiled with other TLS libraries, I'll be downright ecstatic. We are a small ways from that right now, however, and I don't believe that we should be asking the implementors of channel binding to also implement support for multiple TLS libraries in PostgreSQL in order to test that their RFC-following (at least, as far as they can tell) implementation actually works. I'm not exactly sure what to characterize that as, given that the old fall-back of "feature creep" feels woefully inadequate as a description. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
