Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 04/21/2017 05:33 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: On 21 April 2017 at 14:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: SCRAM-SHA-256$:$: Could you explain where you are looking? I don't see that in RFC5803 >From 1. Overview: Yeah, it's not easy to see, I missed it earlier too. You have to

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On 21 April 2017 at 14:42, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: SCRAM-SHA-256$:$: >>> >>> Could you explain where you are looking? I don't see that in RFC5803 >> > >From 1. Overview: > > Yeah, it's not easy to see, I missed it earlier too. You have to look at RFC > 5803 and RFC 3112

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Michael Paquier writes: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 21 April 2017 at 10:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> But looking more closely, I think I misunderstood RFC 5803. It *does* in >>> fact

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 21 April 2017 16:20:56 EEST, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs >wrote: >> On 21 April 2017 at 10:20, Heikki Linnakangas >wrote: >>> But looking more closely, I think I misunderstood RFC

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On 21 April 2017 at 14:20, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 21 April 2017 at 10:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> But looking more closely, I think I misunderstood RFC 5803. It

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: >> I think we should adopt that exact format, so that our verifiers are >> compatible with RFC 5803. It doesn't make any immediate difference, >> but since there is a standard

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 21 April 2017 at 10:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> But looking more closely, I think I misunderstood RFC 5803. It *does* in >> fact specify a single string format to store the verifier in. And the

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Simon Riggs
On 21 April 2017 at 10:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > But looking more closely, I think I misunderstood RFC 5803. It *does* in > fact specify a single string format to store the verifier in. And the format > looks like: > > SCRAM-SHA-256$:$: Could you explain where you are

Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers

2017-04-21 Thread Stephen Frost
Heikki, * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote: > I think we should adopt that exact format, so that our verifiers are > compatible with RFC 5803. It doesn't make any immediate difference, > but since there is a standard out there, might as well follow it. +1 > And just in case we get