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 look at RFC 5803 and
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 together. RFC 311
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 specify a single string format to store the verifier in. And the format
>>
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 5803. It
>*does* in
>>> fact specify a single string format to store
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 *does* in
>>> fact specify a single string format to store the verif
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 out there, might as
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 format
>> looks like:
>>
>> SCRAM-SHA-25
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 looking? I don't see
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 supp
The current format for SCRAM verifiers in pg_authid is:
scram-sha-256
While reviewing Michael's patch to change that so that StoredKey and
ServerKey are stored base64-encoded, rather than hex-encoded as they are
currently [1], I looked again at RFC 5803. RFC 5803 specifies the format
to u
10 matches
Mail list logo