On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:39 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> 0001 was looking fine enough seen from here, so applied it after
> tweaking a few comments. That's enough to cover most of the needs of
> this thread.
Thank you very much!
> 0002 looks pretty simple as well, I think that's worth a look for this
> CF.
Cool. v17 just rebases the set over HEAD, then, for cfbot.
> I am not sure about 0003, to be honest, as I am wondering if
> there could be a better solution than tying more the mechanism names
> with the expected AUTH_REQ_* values..
Yeah, I'm not particularly excited about the approach I took. It'd be
easier if we had a second SASL method to verify the implementation...
I'd also proposed just adding an Assert, as a third option, to guide
the eventual SASL implementer back to this conversation?
--Jacob
