Re: use of the term "verifier" with SCRAM

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: use of the term "verifier" with SCRAM
Date: 2019-10-10 08:03:16
Message-ID: 20191010080316.GI1852@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:08:37AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is my proposed patch to adjust this.

Looks fine to me reading through. I think that you are right to not
change the descriptions in build_server_final_message(), as that's
described similarly in RFC 5802. By renaming scram_build_verifier()
to scram_build_secret() you are going to break one of my in-house
extensions. I am using it to register for a user SCRAM veri^D^D^D^D
secrets with custom iteration and salt length :)
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-10-10 08:17:30 Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-10-10 07:53:04 Re: dropping column prevented due to inherited index