On 17/11/22 14:57, Thomas A. Reim wrote:
Dear Ian and all,
could you please confirm status of this patch?
I haven't committed them yet, I've had a number of things
come up.
Rest assured your patches are in my queue for the next
time I commit.
Ian
Kind regards
Thomas
On 15.09.22 05:26, Ian Kent wrote:
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
calls at the end of the patch.
Is that all the changes?
Is that what's been agreed?
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
