Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Date
Msg-id 20170531034941.GH3151@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert,

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_config --version-num
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_config --version-num