On 16/11/2013 6:38 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 11/15/2013 08:56 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 16/11/2013 6:13 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >>> On 11/15/2013 08:11 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>>> On 30/10/2013 5:13 a.m., Tsantilas Christos wrote: >>>>> The attached patch add the "auth_param request_format" and "auth_param >>>>> request_realm" to proxy authentication schemes. >>>>> >>>>> The request_format value used to define the format of the helper request >>>>> line. It is a "quoted string" with logformat %macro support. A new >>>>> %credentials macro can be used to supply user password and other >>>>> scheme-dependent information to the helper. >>>>> >>>>> The request_realm is an authenticated users cache key format, needed >>>>> when request_format feature is used to authenticate different users with >>>>> identical user names (e.g., when user authentication depends on >>>>> http_port). >>> >>> >>>> I dont think the idea made it out of the IRC planning discussion properly. >>> >>> There was a detailed RFC posted after the informal IRC discussion. The >>> RFC email date is October 10, 2013. It is rather unfortunate that your >>> objections come so late. The primary purpose of RFCs is to prevent the >>> waste of resources and confusion related to changing the primary >>> functionality of the developed, tested, and often deployed features! >>> >> >> Which did not look much different to what we discussed on IRC. >> You discussed there that teh request_realm parameter as alternative to >> request_format, > > No, I did not discuss request_realm parameter as an alternative to > request_format. I proposed it as a solution to use cases where the admin > wants to change not just the request format, but the cache key as well. > I even provided a list of reasons for allowing an admin to configure the > two aspects separately. > > >>>> We need only _one_ format called realm_format. >>> >>> In other words, you want to restrict the proposed request_realm to its >>> proposed default value, eliminating the need for an explicit >>> request_realm configuration option, right? >> >> No. Other way around. realm_format is nicely being appended to the >> existing cache key. It needs likewise to be an append on the existing >> helper lookup line instead of a full replacement of that line (which is >> what request_format does here). > > OK. > > Now about the name: "realm_format" is a bad choice IMO because some > folks will think that it controls the format of the authentication realm > string displayed to the user (for schemes where we can specify that > user-visible string). I suggest calling the new option "request_extras". > The configured extras will be appended to the helper request and to the > cache key. Any better naming ideas? >
Hmm. We could call it "notes" or "annotations" and document it as part of the custom annotations and other details being sent to the helper. Amos
