Re: [PATCH] Pull general SASL framework out of SCRAM

On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 16:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I agree that this looks like an improvement in terms of the
> expectations behind a SASL mechanism, so I have done the attached to
> strengthen a bit all those checks.  However, I don't really see a
> point in back-patching any of that, as SCRAM satisfies with its
> implementation already all those conditions AFAIK.

Agreed.

> Thoughts?

LGTM, thanks!

> +     *    outputlen: The length (0 or higher) of the client response buffer,
> +     *               invalid if output is NULL.

nitpick: maybe "ignored" instead of "invalid"?

--Jacob