Dear Ian, It would be great if you make the small changes. > Am 15.09.2022 um 05:28 schrieb Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On 12/9/22 18:04, Thomas Reim wrote: >> Perfect. >> >> Shall I provide an updated v3 series or should I wait for further comments? > > > I can make these small changes to save you the trouble. > > > My understanding is they are the spelling of "capabilities" and > > the removal of "type" and "method" from from those error() log Correct. > > calls at the end of the patch. > > > Is that all the changes? > > Is that what's been agreed? >From my side: agreed There were no further comments (yet). Thomas > > > Ian > >> >> Kind regards >> >> Thomas >> >>> On 12.09.22 11:49, Paul Menzel wrote: >>> Dear Thomas, >>> >>> >>>> Am 12.09.22 um 10:40 schrieb Thomas Reim: >>> >>>> thank you for reviewing the patch. My understanding of your comment is to align the notation and use authentication "type" or "method". Is this correct? >>> >>> Yes, I thought it’s the same, and suggested it for consistency. >>> >>>> In general, IANA and IETF define SASL authentication mechanisms. For LDAP people talk about different types LDAP authentication calls: simple bind, SASL bind, mixed bind type. >>>> In autofs LDAP configuration users can specify the SASL mechanism using attribute authtype and the authentication bind call type using parameter authrequired. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how to proceed. Maybe we should use: >>>> - "Simple authentication requires ..." >>>> - "%s authentication requires ..." (e. g. SCRAM-SHA-256 authentication requires ...) >>>> - "SASL authentication mechanism auto-selection requires ..." >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> Good idea to avoid it altogether. >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Paul >> >>
