Re: RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3 support
| От | Jacob Champion |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3 support |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAOYmi+nq2ryqYbKGTLcYZOWbm0zbWfRi++Ue3QApo1GvS7p2kQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3 support (* Neustradamus * <neustradamus@hotmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3 support
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 12:49 AM * Neustradamus * <neustradamus@hotmail.com> wrote: > At the same time, about these XEPs, it is the base of the "draft-melnikov-sasl2" done by Alexey Melnikov (author of severalRFCs): > - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-melnikov-sasl2 Right, but even that draft says All of the features below are optional (in order to remain backward compatible with RFC 4422). However if any is implemented, all of them MUST be implemented in a protocol. This makes client implementations easier. So even if we were to charge ahead and assume that the XEP implementation is exactly what's going to be standardized in a future version of SASL, we're still introducing interoperability pain if we don't do other currently-experimental things too. In the past, we've said that we're going to wait for published RFCs, and I think that's served us well. We just need to keep an eye on what the Kitten WG is up to. That doesn't stop anyone from maintaining a patchset that tracks the state of the drafts, though. It's only a barrier to getting it committed and released. Thanks, --Jacob
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: