On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:49:16AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 4:58 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > Attached is a v3 to do these two things, with adjustments for two SSL
> > tests. Any objections about it?
>
> (Sorry for the long weekend delay.) No objections; you may want to
> adjust the comment above the test block in t/001_password.pl, as well.
There are additionally two more comments in the SSL tests that could
be removed, I guess. Here's a v4, with Robert's latest suggestion
added.
> I will ask -- more as a rhetorical question than something to resolve
> for this patch, since the topic is going to come back with a vengeance
> for OAuth -- what purpose the consistency here is serving. If the OP
> wants to notice when a connection that should be using strong
> authentication is not, is it helpful to make that connection "look the
> same" in the logs? I understand we've been carrying the language
> "trust authentication method" for a long time, but is that really the
> only hang-up, or would there be pushback if I tried to change that
> too, sometime in the future?
I am not sure that we need to change this historic term, TBH. Perhaps
it would be shorter to just rip off the trust method from the tree
with a deprecation period but that's not something I'm much in favor
off either (I use it daily for my own stuff, as one example).
Another, more conservative approach may be to make it a developer-only
option and discourage more its use in the docs.
--
Michael
