Gwen,
Kafka 0.9.0.x expect the first token from the client (immediately following
connection for SASL_PLAINTEXT, immediately following TLS handsshake for
SASL_SSL) to be a GSSAPI token. This is passed directly to the SASL GSSAPI
engine. Hence a client which may connect to SASL-enabled Kafka 0.9.0.x has
to either use GSSAPI, or handle authentication failure when attempting to
connect using another mechanism. Any additional behaviour we add in 0.10
cannot change that. Given that SASL configuration in Kafka is based on
static JVM-wide JAAS configuration, I am not sure we need to address
dynamic selection of mechanisms in the client.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Harsha and Rajini,
>
> We need a good way to advertise to clients whether the broker they are
> talking to supports the new KIP-43 methods or not. So a Storm client will
> know whether it can use a delegation token or needs to revert to older
> implementation.
>
> Alternative proposals are more than welcome at the moment.
>
> Gwen
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Harsha <m...@harsha.io> wrote:
>
> > Magnus,
> > I am not in favor moving this SASL/SSL hand shake to
> > KafkaApllication level protocol. I am not sure what evolution
> > of the current handshake needs versioning and also merging
> > Application level protocol with SSL/SASL handshake doesn't
> > seem right.
> > -Harsha
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016, at 05:46 AM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > > Magnus,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *"Why would it be harder to achieve? And is it harder for the Kafka
> > > developeror the user?Wouldnt it be possible to accept both non-SSL-auth
> > > and
> > > SSL-auth clients onthe same port?"*
> > >
> > > Maybe I am missing something, so perhaps it would be easier if I
> > > explained
> > > our scenario and you could tell me how it would work with the new
> design?
> > >
> > >
> > > a) Inter-broker communication
> > >
> > >
> > > - uses SSL (without SASL)
> > > - is on an internal network
> > > - advertised host is internal IP address
> > > - broker uses TLS client auth
> > >
> > > b) External clients
> > >
> > >
> > > - use SASL_SSL
> > > - are on the public network (and traffic goes through an
> additional
> > > TLS proxy for security)
> > > - advertised host is a registered host name also included in the
> > > certificate and validated by the client during TLS handshake
> > > - cannot use TLS client auth since that would require a complex
> PKI
> > > infrastructure for certificate management
> > > - should not be allowed to connect to Kafka without SASL
> > > authentication (broker should prevent connection without SASL)
> > >
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. How do I configure a) and b) to be on different network
> > > interfaces?
> > > 2. How do I advertise different hosts for a) and b)?
> > > 3. How do I configure broker to disable TLS client auth for b)
> while
> > > enabling it for a)?
> > > 4. How does the broker prevent external clients from connecting
> > > without SASL while allowing internal clients to connect without
> SASL?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Edenhill <mag...@edenhill.se>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2016-04-06 19:16 GMT+02:00 Rajini Sivaram <
> > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Magnus,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not looked at your proposal in detail yet,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please do :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > but I have a few comments:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. We need to support SSL and SASL_SSL within the same broker
> (for
> > > > > instance, to support certificate-based authentication for
> > replication
> > > > > and
> > > > > SASL for external connections). At the moment, there is a
> > one-to-one
> > > > > mapping between port and security protocol. If SASL is a
> > Kafka-level
> > > > > option
> > > > > on the same port rather than a security protocol, this would be
> > harder
> > > > > to
> > > > > achieve. With separate protocols, we are also able to turn off
> SSL
> > > > > client
> > > > > auth for SASL.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would it be harder to achieve? And is it harder for the Kafka
> > developer
> > > > or the user?
> > > > Wouldnt it be possible to accept both non-SSL-auth and SSL-auth
> > clients on
> > > > the same port?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. SASL is a challenge-response protocol. Server generates a
> > > > challenge,
> > > > > client responds. Fitting this into Kafka API is possible, but
> > feels
> > > > > unnatural.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I dont see any problems with, the handshake is half-duplex and driven
> > by
> > > > the SASL library, all the client needs
> > > > to do is "long poll" the server for data.
> > > >
> > > > Something like this in pseudo code (where sasl. is the SASL library
> > > > context):
> > > > until sasl.auth_done() {
> > > > sendbuf = sasl.wants_to_send()
> > > > if (!sendbuf) // Nothing to send, send empty payload to poll
> > > > server for data
> > > > response = SaslHandshakeRequest(payload=none)
> > > > else
> > > > response = SaslHandshakeRequest(payload=sendbuf)
> > > >
> > > > // handle response (possibly empty) from server and continue
> > > > handshake.
> > > > sasl.parse(response)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Personally, I like the current Network|Security|Application
> > layering
> > > > > of the code in Kafka. Handshake code is quite complicated and
> > hard to
> > > > > debug
> > > > > as it is, moving that to the application layer could make it
> > worse.
> > > > With
> > > > > handshake in the application layer, you would need to set
> > Principal
> > > > > based
> > > > > on SSL channel for non-SASL and sometime later on for SASL. It
> > may be
> > > > > just
> > > > > me, but it doesn't feel quite right.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I actually think reusing the existing Kafka protocol implementation
> for
> > > > this makes it
> > > > more robust and easier to debug and understand.
> > > >
> > > > How do you plan on handling feature discovery for new requests or
> > request
> > > > versions in this special protocol?
> > > > I.e., what KIP-35 provides for the Kafka protocol.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Magnus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Magnus Edenhill <
> mag...@edenhill.se
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Engineers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sorry to stir up some dust on this KIP but following yesterday's
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > on the KIP call I'm a bit concerned about the way the SASL
> > handshake
> > > > > > protocol is diverging even more from the main Kafka protocol.
> > > > > > The SASL handshake is already its own special protocol and the
> > latest
> > > > > > addition of SaslMechanisms request in KIP-43
> > > > > > adds yet another protocol on top of that, making assumptions on
> > what
> > > > SASL
> > > > > > libraries are communicating in the opaque data channel.
> > > > > > Unlike TLS, SASL has no standard handshake protocol so
> conceiving a
> > > > > special
> > > > > > non-Kafka protocol just for SASL in Kafka is unwarranted given
> > that the
> > > > > > Kafka protocol natively supports the same semantics.
> > > > > > There's also a non-neglectable maintenance aspect of maintaining
> a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > protocol, in regards to documentation, versioning, testing,
> > protocol
> > > > > stack
> > > > > > implementations (broker and clients * N), etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So let me suggest a different approach that pulls the SASL
> > handshake
> > > > into
> > > > > > the Kafka protocol properly and makes the
> > > > > > authentication an in-band connection setup step.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Create two new proper Kafka requests:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SaslMechanismsRequest V0 {
> > > > > > // empty (see discussion below)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SaslMechanismResponse V0 {
> > > > > > int16 errroCode; // e.g. AuthenticationNotRequired (when
> > SASL
> > > > is
> > > > > > not configured) - or maybe just return an empty list in that case
> > > > > > Array[String] mechanisms; // server's supported mechanisms.
> > > > Client
> > > > > > may choose which one to use.
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SaslHandshakeRequest V0 {
> > > > > > string selected_mechanism; // client's selected mechanism,
> > MUST
> > > > not
> > > > > > change during a handshake (ignore in sub-sequent requests?)
> > > > > > bytes data; // opaque SASL library handshake data.
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SaslHandshakeResponse V0 {
> > > > > > int16 errorCode; // e.g. UnsupportedMechanism, and
> arbitrary
> > SASL
> > > > > > library exceptions, etc.
> > > > > > bytes data; // opaque SASL library handshake data.
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Note: I'll leave the exact format of the above Request/Responses
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > people in the know, this is a proof of concept layout.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The protocol semantics of the current SASL handshake, which is
> > driven
> > > > by
> > > > > > the underlying SASL libraries, remains in place,
> > > > > > such as sending zero length requests to "poll" the remote side,
> > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding empty SaslMechanismRequest:
> > > > > > A previous proposal suggests sending the client's configured
> > mechanism
> > > > in
> > > > > > the SaslMechanismRequest, which is fine but if we do that there
> > is no
> > > > > > point in returning the broker's list of mechanisms since the
> > client has
> > > > > > already chosen - only the error code is needed.
> > > > > > For clients wanting to support multiple mechanisms it can
> iterate
> > over
> > > > > its
> > > > > > configured mechanisms and send a SaslMechanismRequest for each
> > one,
> > > > but
> > > > > > that just adds complexity at no gain, and at the end of the day
> the
> > > > > > desired_mechanism check in the broker is purely cosmetic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we instead skip the desired mechanism and let the broker
> always
> > > > > return
> > > > > > its list of supported mechanisms the client can choose the one it
> > > > needs,
> > > > > > this allows a client to optionally support multiple mechanisms
> and
> > also
> > > > > > puts the decision logic in the client rather than the server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the argument is that a client will only support one mechanism
> > > > (which
> > > > > I
> > > > > > think is a bold claim to make) then the SaslMechanismRequest
> isn't
> > > > needed
> > > > > > at all, the client can jump directly SaslHandshakeRequest {
> > > > > > selected_mechanism="mymechanism" } and look for
> > UnsupportedMechanism in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > response's errorCode.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical client MO using the above requests:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # Use ApiVersion info to select the proper SaslMechanismRequest
> > version
> > > > > to
> > > > > > use (for future use..)
> > > > > > Client > Broker: ApiVersionRequest // (optional) query
> for
> > > > > > supported API versions, possibly limited to
> > > > > > {SaslHandshakeReq,SaslMechanismsReq..}
> > > > > > Broker < Client: ApiVersionResponse { .. }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # Request broker's supported mechanisms list
> > > > > > Client > Broker: SaslMechanismRequest { }
> > > > > > Broker < Client: SaslMechanismResponse { mechanisms = {
> "GSSAPI",
> > > > > "KRB",
> > > > > > .. }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # If broker responded with an empty mechanisms list, alternative
> an
> > > > > > AuthenticationNotRequired error code, the client skips to its
> > > > operational
> > > > > > phase.
> > > > > > # If the client can't find a supported mechanism in the returned
> > > > > mechanisms
> > > > > > list it raises an error to the application.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # Otherwise the client selects a proper mechanism and the auth
> > > > handshake
> > > > > > begins:
> > > > > > Client > Broker: SaslHandshakeRequest { mechanism="KRB", data =
> > > > > > KRB-specific data.. }
> > > > > > Broker > Client: SaslHandshakeResponse { data = KRB-specific
> data
> > }
> > > > > > repeat as necessary
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # Client is now authenticated and may start its usual operation
> of
> > > > > > MetadataRequest, Produce, Fetch, etc...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pros:
> > > > > > + Using the standard Kafka protocol provides proper versioning,
> > > > > > documentation, feature detection, etc, out of the box.
> > > > > > + Less complex protcol implementations in both client and
> brokers.
> > > > > > Standard protocol stack can be used.
> > > > > > + No need to define a specific SASL port, SASL is now an in-band
> > > > > operation
> > > > > > on any type of connection (PLAINTEXT, SSL)
> > > > > > + Requires proper per-API auth enforcement in the broker, which
> > is a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > thing. (i.e., if SASL is configured an unauthenticated client
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > permitted to call any API but ApiVersion, SaslHandshake,
> > > > SaslMechanisms,
> > > > > > ..).
> > > > > > + Future proof, the SASL/Auth handshake protocol can evolve
> > naturally
> > > > > > using KIP-35 for feature detection.
> > > > > > + Looking forward this also enables re-authentication in the
> > current
> > > > > > session, if there's ever a use case for that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cons:
> > > > > > - Requires proper per-API auth enforcement in the broker, but
> > this is
> > > > a
> > > > > > good thing. An initial naiive approach to this is to only allow
> > Sasl*
> > > > and
> > > > > > ApiVersion requests prior to authentication (if auth is
> required).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Compatibility:
> > > > > > - Leave the current legacy SASL handshake in place for
> > SASL_PLAINTEXT
> > > > > and
> > > > > > SASL_SSL connections to not break existing 0.9 clients (that is
> the
> > > > Java
> > > > > > client and librdkafka, no other clients have implemented SASL
> yet
> > > > > AFAIK).
> > > > > > Deprecate this method in documentation.
> > > > > > - SSL and PLAINTEXT connections will use in-band authentication
> if
> > > > SASL
> > > > > is
> > > > > > configured.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /Magnus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2016-03-16 0:41 GMT+01:00 Rajini Sivaram <
> > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both the KIP and the PR have been updated to a cut-down version
> > as
> > > > > > > discussed in the KIP meeting today.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any feedback is appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Following on from the discussions in the KIP meeting today,
> the
> > > > > > > suggestion
> > > > > > > > is to implement a cut-down version of KIP-43 for 0.10.0.0
> with
> > a
> > > > > > > follow-on
> > > > > > > > KIP after the release to address support for custom
> mechanisms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Changes to be removed from KIP-43:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Remove the configuration for CallbackHandler. The
> > callback
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > > implementation in Kafka will support Kerberos, PLAIN and
> > > > > Digest-MD5.
> > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > will not support custom or more complex mechanisms which
> > require
> > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > callbacks.
> > > > > > > > 2. Remove the configuration for Login. The Login
> > implementation
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > Kafka will support Kerberos and any other mechanism
> (PLAIN,
> > > > > > > Digest-MD5 etc)
> > > > > > > > that doesn't require functionality like token refresh.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Changes included in KIP-43:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Configurable mechanism
> > > > > > > > 2. Support for multiple mechanisms in the broker
> > > > > > > > 3. Implementation of SASL/PLAIN
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If there are no objections to this, I can update the KIP and
> > the PR
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > tomorrow. And move the support for custom mechanisms into
> > another
> > > > KIP
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > PR for review after the release of 0.10.0.0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Harsha,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> You are right, we don't expect to override callback handler
> or
> > > > login
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> Digest-MD5.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Pluggable CallbackHandler and Login modules enable custom
> SASL
> > > > > > > mechanisms
> > > > > > > >> to be implemented without modifying Kafka. For instance, it
> > would
> > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > >> KIP-44 (
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-44+-+Allow+Kafka+to+have+a+customized+security+protocol
> > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > >> to be implemented without making the whole security protocol
> > > > > > pluggable.
> > > > > > > Tao
> > > > > > > >> Xiao has already confirmed earlier in this discussion thread
> > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> proposed callback handler and login interfaces are suitable
> > for
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > >> custom authentication.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Agree with Gwen here. I feel like these additional
> pluggable
> > > > Login
> > > > > > > >>> Modules are making this KIP complex. Since the main goal of
> > the
> > > > KIP
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> to enable additional mechanism , can we limit the scope to
> > that
> > > > and
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >>> we feel necessary for pluggable Login and callback handler
> > > > classes
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>> can address in another JIRA.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Adding digest-md5 ,password callbacks can be done to
> existing
> > > > > > > >>> callbackhandler without expose it as pluggable class. It
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >>> useful to have broker support multiple mechanisms. I
> haven't
> > > > seen
> > > > > > > >>> anyone using more than this in hadoop . It might be
> > different for
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > >>> but I personally haven't seen anyone asking for this yet.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> Harsha
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016, at 01:44 AM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > Gwen,
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > Just to be clear, the alternative would be:
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > *jaas.conf:*
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > GssapiKafkaServer {
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > com.ibm.security.auth.module.Krb5LoginModule required
> > > > > > > >>> > credsType=both
> > > > > > > >>> > useKeytab="file:/kafka/key.tab"
> > > > > > > >>> > principal="kafka/localh...@example.com <
> > http://example.com/>";
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > };
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > SmartcardKafkaServer {
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > example.SmartcardLoginModule required
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > cardNumber=123;
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > };
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > *KafkaConfig*
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > - login.context.map={"GSSAPI="GssapiKafkaServer",
> > > > > > > >>> > "SMARTCARD"=SmartcardKafkaServer}
> > > > > > > >>> > - login.class.map={"GSSAPI=GssapiLogin.class,
> > > > > > > >>> > "SMARTCARD"=SmartcardLogin.class}
> > > > > > > >>> > -
> > > > > > > >>>
> > callback.handler.class.map={"GSSAPI"=GssapiCallbackHandler.class,
> > > > > > > >>> > "SMARTCARD"=SmartcardCallbackHandler.class}
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > *Client Config *
> > > > > > > >>> > Same as the server, but with only one entry allowed in
> > each map
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> > jaas.conf
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > This is a different model from the Java standard for
> > supporting
> > > > > > > >>> multiple
> > > > > > > >>> > logins. As a developer, I am inclined to stick with
> > approaches
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >>> > widely in use like JSSE. But this alternative can be made
> > to
> > > > work
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>> > Kafka community feels it is more appropriate for Kafka.
> If
> > you
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> > other systems which use this approach, that would be
> > helpful.
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > g...@confluent.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > What I'm hearing is that:
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > 1. In order to support authentication mechanisms that
> > were
> > > > not
> > > > > > > >>> written
> > > > > > > >>> > > specifically with Kafka in mind, someone will need to
> > write
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > integration between the mechanism and Kafka. This may
> > include
> > > > > > Login
> > > > > > > >>> > > and CallbackHandler classes. This can be the mechanism
> > > > vendor,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > user or a 3rd party vendor.
> > > > > > > >>> > > 2. If someone wrote the code to support a mechanism in
> > Kafka,
> > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > >>> > > user will want to use more than one mechanism, they
> will
> > > > still
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > write a wrapper.
> > > > > > > >>> > > 3. In reality, #2 will not be necessary ("edge-case")
> > because
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > >>> > > will actually already provide the callback needed (and
> > > > > presumably
> > > > > > > >>> also
> > > > > > > >>> > > the code to load the LoginModule provided by
> > Example.com)?
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > Tradeoff #1 sounds reasonable.
> > > > > > > >>> > > #2 and #3 do not sound reasonable considering one of
> the
> > > > goals
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > patch is to support multiple mechanisms. I don't think
> we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >>> force
> > > > > > > >>> > > our users to write code just to avoid writing it
> > ourselves.
> > > > > > > >>> > > Configuring security is complex enough as is.
> > > > > > > >>> > > Furthermore, if we believe that "Smartcard is likely to
> > use
> > > > > > > standard
> > > > > > > >>> > > NameCallback and PasswordCallback already implemented
> in
> > > > > Kafka" -
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > >>> > > do we even provide configuration for Login and
> > > > CallbackHandler
> > > > > > > >>> > > classes? Either we support multiple mechanisms written
> by
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > >>> > > vendors, or we don't.
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > Gwen
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Rajini Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > I am not saying that the developer at Example Inc.
> > would
> > > > > > develop
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>> Login
> > > > > > > >>> > > > implementation that combines Smartcard and Kerberos
> > because
> > > > > > > >>> Retailer uses
> > > > > > > >>> > > > both. I am saying that Example Inc develops the
> > LoginModule
> > > > > > > >>> (similar to
> > > > > > > >>> > > JVM
> > > > > > > >>> > > > security providers developing Kerberos modules). But
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > >>> standard
> > > > > > > >>> > > > interface for Login to allow ticket refresh. So, it
> is
> > very
> > > > > > > >>> unlikely that
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Example Inc would develop a Login implementation that
> > works
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >>> > > Apache
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Kafka defined interface ( Kafka developers wrote this
> > code
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> Kerberos).
> > > > > > > >>> > > > For a custom integration, the user (i.e. Retailer)
> > would be
> > > > > > > >>> expected to
> > > > > > > >>> > > > develop this code if required.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > You could imagine that Smartcard is a commonly used
> > > > mechanism
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> a 3rd
> > > > > > > >>> > > > party develops code for integrating Smartcard with
> > Kafka
> > > > and
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > > integration code (Login and CallbackHandler
> > implementation)
> > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > >>> > > > available, If Retailer wants to use clients or a
> broker
> > > > with
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > >>> > > Smartcard
> > > > > > > >>> > > > enabled in their broker, they configure Kafka to use
> > the
> > > > 3rd
> > > > > > > party
> > > > > > > >>> code,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > with no additional code development. But to combine
> > > > Smartcard
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> > > Kerberos,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Retailer needs to write a few lines of code to
> > incorporate
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > >>> Smartcard
> > > > > > > >>> > > > and Kerberos. I believe this is an edge case.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Smartcard is likely to use standard NameCallback and
> > > > > > > >>> PasswordCallback
> > > > > > > >>> > > > already implemented in Kafka and Kerberos support
> > exists in
> > > > > > > Kafka.
> > > > > > > >>> So it
> > > > > > > >>> > > is
> > > > > > > >>> > > > very likely that Retailer doesn't need to override
> > Login or
> > > > > > > >>> > > CallbackHandler
> > > > > > > >>> > > > in this case. And it would just be a matter of
> > configuring
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > mechanisms.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > g...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> "Since smart card logins are not built into Kafka
> (or
> > the
> > > > > > JDK),
> > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > need a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> developer to build the login module. So the
> developer
> > > > > > implements
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> example.SmartcardLoginModule. In addition, the
> > developer
> > > > may
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >>> > > implement
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> callback handlers for the SASL client or server
> and a
> > > > login
> > > > > > > >>> class to
> > > > > > > >>> > > keep
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> this login refreshed. The callback handlers and
> login
> > > > > > > >>> implementation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> support all the mechanisms that the organisation
> > supports
> > > > -
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>> this case
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Kerberos and smart card."
> > > > > > > >>> > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> In this case, the developer works for Example Inc
> > (which
> > > > > > > develops
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> SmartCard authentication modules), while I work for
> > > > Retailer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> to use his module.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> You assume that developer from Example Inc knows
> > about all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> mechanisms that I have enabled in my Kafka cluster
> > and he
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> capable
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> of developing a Login class and maybe a callback
> > handler
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> supports
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> all of them. I think this is an unreasonable
> > expectation.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> I think that allowing plug in of Login method and
> > single
> > > > > > > Callback
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> handler is not a good extensible solution for
> multiple
> > > > > > > >>> mechanisms. We
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> should probably supply a Kafka-based LoginContext
> and
> > > > > > > >>> CallbackHandler
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> that will be able to delegate to implementations of
> > > > > > LoginModules
> > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Callback Handlers based on mechanism out of a list
> > > > supplied
> > > > > > by a
> > > > > > > >>> user.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> I agree it is more complex, but otherwise we are
> > asking of
> > > > > too
> > > > > > > >>> much
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> coordination from whoever implements
> CallbackHandlers
> > and
> > > > > > Login
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> methods.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Gwen
> > > > > > > >>> > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Rajini Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > As an admin, you would configure login modules
> using
> > > > > > standard
> > > > > > > >>> JAAS
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > configuration. So, if you are supporting Kerberos
> > and
> > > > > smart
> > > > > > > >>> card login
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > modules within a single broker, in your jaas.conf
> > you
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > >>> specify:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > KafkaServer {
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > com.ibm.security.auth.module.Krb5LoginModule
> > required
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > credsType=both
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > useKeytab="file:/kafka/key.tab"
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > principal="kafka/localh...@example.com";
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > example.SmartcardLoginModule required
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > cardNumber=123
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > };
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > Since smart card logins are not built into Kafka
> > (or the
> > > > > > JDK),
> > > > > > > >>> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > need a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > developer to build the login module. So the
> > developer
> > > > > > > implements
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > example.SmartcardLoginModule. In addition, the
> > developer
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > >>> also
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> implement
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > callback handlers for the SASL client or server
> > and a
> > > > > login
> > > > > > > >>> class to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> keep
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > this login refreshed. The callback handlers and
> > login
> > > > > > > >>> implementation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > support all the mechanisms that the organisation
> > > > supports
> > > > > -
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>> this
> > > > > > > >>> > > case
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > Kerberos and smart card.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > As an admin, if you are using mechanisms built
> into
> > > > Kafka,
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>> simply
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > specify a JAAS config with the combination of
> > mechanisms
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>> want and
> > > > > > > >>> > > you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > are done. If you are adding new mechanisms, it
> > clearly
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > without some additional code to implement that
> > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > >>> callback
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > login interfaces are configurable to ensure that
> > (as a
> > > > > > > >>> developer), you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> can
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > build custom mechanisms without modifying Kafka.
> > SASL
> > > > was
> > > > > > > >>> designed
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > precisely to do this. But at the moment, Kafka
> > restricts
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >>> type of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > authentication you can perform with SASL.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > Back to the questions:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > 1. *How does the proposed Login class interact
> with
> > > > > > > >>> LoginContext and *
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > *LoginModule.*
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > Login class performs *LoginContext.login(). *This
> > > > performs
> > > > > > > >>> login for
> > > > > > > >>> > > all
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > the login modules of that context (this is
> standard
> > Java
> > > > > > > >>> function).
> > > > > > > >>> > > Login
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > is cached with a reference counter to keep it
> alive.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > 2. *Do we really need a pluggable Login class,
> when
> > > > users
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> **(administrators,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > not developers) are more likely to want to specify
> > > > > > > >>> LoginModules?*
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > Administrators specify *LoginModules. *Developers
> > > > > implement
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> mechanisms.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > The pluggable *Login* class enables the developer
> to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > >>> new
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > mechanisms without changing Kafka. If Kafka didn't
> > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >>> default
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Kerberos
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > implementation and a user wanted to use Kerberos,
> > > > > > pluggability
> > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> *Login* class
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > enables the user to include Kerberos without
> > changing
> > > > > Kafka.
> > > > > > > >>> Not that
> > > > > > > >>> > > we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > want another Kerberos, but Tao had a requirement
> to
> > > > > enable a
> > > > > > > >>> custom
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > mechanism with functionality similar to Kerberos
> > (see
> > > > > > KIP-44).
> > > > > > > >>> > > Pluggable
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > *Login* supports this use case without replacing
> the
> > > > > entire
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> authentication
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > mechanism in Kafka.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > *3. How will users get to specify multiple
> > > > LoginModules?*
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > Standard Java JAAS configuration - see example
> > above.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > *4. It sounds like different LoginModules may need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > different CallbackHandlers. Since we only allow a
> > single
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > pluggableCallbackHandler class in the KIP-43
> > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >>> will
> > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > be handled?*
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > One LoginContext, one subject, one callback
> handler,
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > >>> login
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > modules. This is the Java model for login. And it
> > works
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > >>> because
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > callback handlers tend to be fairly standard. Even
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > smart
> > > > > > > >>> card
> > > > > > > >>> > > SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > callbacks needed to do something wildly different
> > and
> > > > you
> > > > > > > >>> wanted a
> > > > > > > >>> > > broker
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > that combined this with Kerberos, you would
> > implement a
> > > > > > > >>> callback that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > looked like the code below.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > private CallbackHandler handler;
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > public void configure(Map<String, ?>
> > configs,
> > > > Mode
> > > > > > > mode,
> > > > > > > >>> > > Subject
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > subject, String mechanism) {public void
> > > > > > configure(Map<String,
> > > > > > > ?>
> > > > > > > >>> > > configs,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > Mode mode, Subject subject, String mechanism) {
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > switch (mechanism) {
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > case "GSSAPI" : handler = new
> > > > > > > >>> GssapiCallbackHandler();
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> break
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > ;
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > case "SMARTCARD" : handler = new
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> SmartcardCallbackHandler();
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > break;
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > }
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > }
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > public void handle(Callback[] callbacks)
> > throws
> > > > > > > >>> IOException,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > UnsupportedCallbackException {
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > handler.handle(callbacks);
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > }
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > But I don't see this as just an admin
> configuration.
> > > > This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> some code
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > developed alongside a new mechanism. Yes, you can
> > add a
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > >>> > > configuration
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > type in Kafka that maps mechanism to callback
> > handler
> > > > > class
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> avoid
> > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > switch statement. But that doesn't remove the need
> > for
> > > > new
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> altogether
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > since you still need to implement
> > > > > SmartcardCallbackHandler.
> > > > > > > >>> Multiple
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > conflicting callback handlers within one broker to
> > > > support
> > > > > > > >>> complete
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > different behaviour is an edge case. Since the
> > design
> > > > > > supports
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > full flexibility in terms of functionality and you
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> write new
> > > > > > > >>> > > code
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > for new mechanisms anyway, this feels like the
> > simplest
> > > > > > > >>> solution.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > > g...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> I guess what is unclear to me is:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> 1. How does the proposed Login class interact
> with
> > > > > > > >>> LoginContext and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> LoginModule.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> 2. Do we really need a pluggable Login class,
> when
> > > > users
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> (administrators, not developers) are more likely
> to
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> specify
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> LoginModules?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> 3. How will users get to specify multiple
> > LoginModules?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> 4. It sounds like different LoginModules may need
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> CallbackHandlers. Since we only allow a single
> > > > pluggable
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> CallbackHandler class in the KIP-43
> configuration,
> > how
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >>> this be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> handled?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> In other words, suppose I want my Kafka
> > installation to
> > > > > > > >>> support both
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Kerberos and SmartCard mechanisms, can you tell
> me
> > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> configure
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Kafka? (as admin, not developer)?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Gwen
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Rajini Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > Gwen,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > I am not sure I understand your concern. Java
> > login
> > > > > > > contexts
> > > > > > > >>> > > support
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > multiple login modules precisely to support
> this
> > type
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> real-world
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > scenario.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > From Javadoc of
> > > > > *javax.security.auth.login.LoginContext*:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > *In addition to supporting pluggable
> > authentication,
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > >>> class
> > > > > > > >>> > > also
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > supports the notion of stacked authentication.
> > > > > > Applications
> > > > > > > >>> may be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > configured to use more than one LoginModule.
> For
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > >>> one could
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > configure both a Kerberos LoginModule and a
> smart
> > > > card
> > > > > > > >>> LoginModule
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> under
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > application. *
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > * A typical caller instantiates a LoginContext
> > with a
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > >>> and a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > CallbackHandler. LoginContext uses the name as
> > the
> > > > > index
> > > > > > > >>> into a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > Configuration to determine which LoginModules
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >>> used, and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> which
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > ones must succeed in order for the overall
> > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > succeed.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> The
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > CallbackHandler is passed to the underlying
> > > > > LoginModules
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >>> they
> > > > > > > >>> > > may
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > communicate and interact with users (prompting
> > for a
> > > > > > > >>> username and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> password
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > via a graphical user interface, for example).*
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > If it is good enough for Java, surely it must
> be
> > good
> > > > > > > enough
> > > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Kafka.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> We
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > don't expect users to directly use existing
> > classes
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > >>> they want
> > > > > > > >>> > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > support complex new mechanisms. Login is not a
> > > > standard
> > > > > > > >>> interface,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> and we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > want to make callback handlers configurable. So
> > we do
> > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > >>> > > users to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> wrap
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > their existing classes in our interface. And
> the
> > > > > > interfaces
> > > > > > > >>> make it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > possible to plugin any number of mechanisms.
> Am I
> > > > > missing
> > > > > > > >>> > > something?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Gwen Shapira <
> > > > > > > >>> g...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> Yes, I understand that.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> However, because the current configuration
> only
> > > > > allows a
> > > > > > > >>> single
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> callback and a single login module, I need to
> > > > supply a
> > > > > > > >>> class that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> supports callbacks or logins for every single
> > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> that I
> > > > > > > >>> > > need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> support. I question whether this is applicable
> > in
> > > > > > > real-world
> > > > > > > >>> > > scenario
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> where a user may need to support mechanisms
> that
> > > > were
> > > > > > > >>> written by
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> different vendors and where a single class
> that
> > > > > > implements
> > > > > > > >>> all the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> necessary modules or callsbacks is very
> > unlikely to
> > > > > > exist.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> I agree that supporting a list of classes and
> > > > > > dynamically
> > > > > > > >>> using
> > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> correct callbacks and modules based on
> > configuration
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> complex,
> > > > > > > >>> > > but
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> don't think this feature is useful enough
> > without
> > > > it.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> Gwen
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Rajini Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > Gwen,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > Sorry if this is not clear in the KIP. The
> > goal of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> KIP is to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> enable
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> new
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > mechanisms to be added without any changes
> to
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > >>> Kafka. The
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > configuration proposed by the KIP is based
> on
> > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > configurability
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > Java SASL API and what it would take to add
> a
> > new
> > > > > > > >>> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> similar to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > Kerberos/PLAIN/Digest-MD5 and the
> requirements
> > > > that
> > > > > > Tao
> > > > > > > >>> raised
> > > > > > > >>> > > for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> custom
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > authentication.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > The PR includes a test for Digest-MD5 which
> > is not
> > > > > > > >>> included in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Kafka,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> but
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > is tested using the configuration options
> that
> > > > allow
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >>> > > mechanisms
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> to be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > added.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > If you want to add a more complex mechanism
> > which
> > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> integration
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > some external authentication libraries for
> > login
> > > > or
> > > > > > > >>> callback
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> handlers,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > can do that by configuring your own callback
> > > > handler
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> login
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > implementation. The login class allows you
> to
> > add
> > > > > > > >>> additional
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> threads
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> (for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > instance for token refresh), while the
> > callback
> > > > > > handler
> > > > > > > >>> extends
> > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > standard Java CallbackHandler interface,
> > enabling
> > > > > you
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > override
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> any
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > the default callbacks in Kafka to provide
> > your own
> > > > > > > >>> behaviour. If
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> want
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > to add your own login modules, SASL server
> or
> > SASL
> > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> implementation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > for a mechanism that is not supported in
> your
> > JDK,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>> can do
> > > > > > > >>> > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> by
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > adding new Java security modules, using the
> > > > built-in
> > > > > > > >>> > > pluggability
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Java
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > security.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > And finally, if you want to enable multiple
> > > > > mechanisms
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>> your
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Kafka
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > brokers, you can specify a callback handler
> > class
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> either
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> provides
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > handlers for all the mechanisms (as the PR
> > does
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> Kerberos and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> PLAIN)
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> or
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > a delegator that calls different callback
> > handlers
> > > > > > based
> > > > > > > >>> on the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> mechanism.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > And for login, you provide a single or a
> > compound
> > > > > > class
> > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> provides
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> any
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > additional login logic for all the login
> > modules
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>> have
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> specified
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > for KafkaServer.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > Hope that helps.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Gwen
> Shapira <
> > > > > > > >>> g...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> Can you explain the process for a adding a
> > new
> > > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> based
> > > > > > > >>> > > on
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> current
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> KIP?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> My thought is that if it requires modifying
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > >>> code,
> > > > > > > >>> > > it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> not pluggable enough.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Rajini
> > Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > Gwen,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > In cases where you want completely
> > different
> > > > > > > callbacks
> > > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> different
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > mechanisms, I was thinking that the
> choice
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>> between a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> map
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > classes (mechanism -> callbackHandler
> > class)
> > > > or a
> > > > > > > >>> delegator
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> class
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > chooses the appropriate callback handler
> > class
> > > > > > based
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> mechanism.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> chose
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > the latter since it makes it easier to
> > > > configure
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>> Kafka.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Since we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> create
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > a callback handler for each channel and
> > > > configure
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>> with the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > client-selected mechanism, it is
> > > > straightforward
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> have one
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> wrapper
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> class
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > that delegates to the right
> > mechanism-specific
> > > > > > class
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > handle
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> callbacks.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > In many cases, a single class may be
> > sufficient
> > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > >>> PR uses
> > > > > > > >>> > > a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> single
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > callback class for Kerberos and PLAIN). I
> > do
> > > > see
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > >>> point
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> about
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > flexibility that multiple classes would
> > > > provide,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >>> since
> > > > > > > >>> > > you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> to be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > able to associate the callback with a
> > mechanism
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> this to
> > > > > > > >>> > > be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> useful, I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> am
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > not sure if just a list would add value.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > Login class is slightly different since
> the
> > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > >>> is to
> > > > > > > >>> > > use a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> single
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > login context with multiple login modules
> > to
> > > > > handle
> > > > > > > >>> multiple
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> mechanisms.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> In
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > this case, you want to perform login for
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> mechanisms
> > > > > > > >>> > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> are
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > enabled. And you want to call
> > > > > loginContext.login()
> > > > > > > >>> only once.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Again,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > can delegate to multiple classes if you
> > wish to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > >>> some
> > > > > > > >>> > > complex
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > mechanism-specific logic, but a single
> > login
> > > > > class
> > > > > > > >>> makes the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> mapping
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> to a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > single login context and the login cache
> > more
> > > > > > obvious
> > > > > > > >>> (the PR
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> has a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> test
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > that includes Kerberos and PLAIN).
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Gwen
> > Shapira <
> > > > > > > >>> > > g...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Before I can vote on this KIP, I have
> two
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > >>> > > questions
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> /
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> comments on the new configuration:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> 1. sasl.callback.handler.class - it
> looks
> > like
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>> want a
> > > > > > > >>> > > single
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> class
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> that implements all mechanisms. I think
> > this
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >>> make it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> difficult
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> extend since the only way I can add a
> > > > mechanism
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >>> be by
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> implementing every single existing
> > mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> (otherwise
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> customers
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> will
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> need to choose between new and existing
> > when
> > > > > > > >>> selecting which
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> class to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> use). If Microsoft releases a
> proprietary
> > "AD
> > > > > > > >>> Mechanism" and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Oracle
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> releases "OID mechanism", there will be
> no
> > > > class
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> implements
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> both.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Can we make it a list of classes
> instead?
> > I
> > > > > > realize
> > > > > > > >>> this
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> complicates
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the code a bit (some kind of factory
> will
> > be
> > > > > > > required
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > choose
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> right class to use), but important IMO.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> 2. similar for sasl.login.class - if I
> > have a
> > > > > > class
> > > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Kerberos
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> (with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> refresh thread) and a class for "plain",
> > we
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> be able
> > > > > > > >>> > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> load
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> both.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> Gwen
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Rajini
> > > > Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> <rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Jun,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Thanks, I have added a note to the
> KIP.
> > I
> > > > will
> > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > >>> > > comment
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > implementation and also add a unit
> test
> > to
> > > > > > ensure
> > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> conflicts
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> are
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > avoided when version number is
> modified.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Jun
> Rao
> > <
> > > > > > > >>> j...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Rajini,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for the explanation. For 1,
> this
> > > > > implies
> > > > > > > >>> that we
> > > > > > > >>> > > have
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> to be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> careful
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> with changing the 2-byte version in
> the
> > > > > future
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> avoid
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> conflict.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> Could
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> document this in the KIP and also in
> > the
> > > > > > > >>> implementation?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jun
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:47 AM,
> Rajini
> > > > > Sivaram
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> rajinisiva...@googlemail.com
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Jun,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Thank you for the review.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 1. With GSSAPI, the first
> context
> > > > > > > >>> establishment
> > > > > > > >>> > > packet
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> starts
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > byte 0x60 (tag for
> APPLICATION-0)
> > > > > followed
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> variable-length
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> encoded
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > size, followed by various tags
> and
> > > > > > contents.
> > > > > > > >>> And the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> packet
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> also
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > contains a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > checksum. This is completely
> > different
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> packet
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> from
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Kafka
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > clients which start with a
> > two-byte
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > >>> set to
> > > > > > > >>> > > zero
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> currently,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > followed
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > by just a String mechanism.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 2. Agreed, I have removed the
> > version
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > server
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> response
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > KIP. Thanks.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Jun
> > Rao <
> > > > > > > >>> > > j...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Rajini,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Thanks for the updates. Just a
> > couple
> > > > of
> > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > >>> > > comments.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > 1. With the default GSSAPI,
> what's
> > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > >>> packet
> > > > > > > >>> > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> client
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> sends
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > to the server? Is that completely
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > >>> from the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> packet
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> format
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > will use for non-GSSAPI
> mechanisms?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > 2. In the server response, it
> > doesn't
> > > > > seem
> > > > > > > >>> that we
> > > > > > > >>> > > need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> include
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > version since the client knows
> the
> > > > > version
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> request
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> that it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> sends.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Jun
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:14 AM,
> > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >>> Sivaram <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Harsha,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Thank you for the review. I
> will
> > wait
> > > > > > > >>> another day
> > > > > > > >>> > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> see
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> if
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> there
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > more
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > feedback and then start a
> voting
> > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:51
> PM,
> > > > > Harsha <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> ka...@harsha.io
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Rajini,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Thanks for the
> > > > changes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> the KIP.
> > > > > > > >>> > > It
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> looks
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> good
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > me. I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > think we can
> > move to
> > > > > > > voting.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Harsha
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, at
> 12:43
> > AM,
> > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >>> Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > I have added some more
> > detail to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > >>> based
> > > > > > > >>> > > on
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> discussion
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > last KIP meeting to
> simplify
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> > > multiple
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> mechanisms.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Have
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > also
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > changed the property names
> to
> > > > > reflect
> > > > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Also updated the PR in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3149
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > reflect the KIP.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Any feedback is
> appreciated.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at
> 9:36
> > PM,
> > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >>> > > Sivaram <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
> rajinisiva...@googlemail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > I have updated the KIP
> > based on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > discussion
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> KIP
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> meeting
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > today.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Comments and feedback are
> > > > > welcome.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at
> > 7:20 PM,
> > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >>> > > Sivaram <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> Hi Harsha,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> Thank you for the
> review.
> > Can
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>> clarify -
> > > > > > > >>> > > I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> think
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> are
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > saying
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> the client should send
> its
> > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> over
> > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> wire to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > server.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> correct? The exchange is
> > > > > slightly
> > > > > > > >>> different
> > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> KIP
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> (the PR
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > matches the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> KIP) from the one you
> > > > described
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> enable
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> interoperability
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > 0.9.0.0.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at
> > 1:56
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > > >>> Harsha <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> m...@harsha.io>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> Rajini,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> I looked at
> > the PR
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>> have. I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> think
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> its
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> better
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > your
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> earlier
> > approach
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > >>> than
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> extending
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> protocol.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> What I was thinking
> > initially
> > > > > is,
> > > > > > > >>> Broker
> > > > > > > >>> > > has a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> config
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> option
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > say
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> sasl.mechanism =
> GSSAPI,
> > > > PLAIN
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> and the client can have
> > > > similar
> > > > > > > >>> config of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> sasl.mechanism=PLAIN.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Client
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> can send its sasl
> > mechanism
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> handshake
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> starts
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> if
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> broker accepts that
> > > > particular
> > > > > > > >>> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > than
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> can go
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> ahead
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> handshake otherwise
> > return a
> > > > > > error
> > > > > > > >>> saying
> > > > > > > >>> > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > not
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> allowed.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> Harsha
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, at
> > 04:58
> > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > >>> Rajini
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Sivaram
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > A slightly different
> > > > approach
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> > > supporting
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> different
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > mechanisms
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > within a broker is to
> > allow
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> same
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> "*security
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> protocol*"
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > used
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > different ports with
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > >>> > > configuration
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> options. An
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > advantage
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > this
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > approach is that it
> > extends
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> configurability of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> not
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> just
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > SASL,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> any
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > protocol. For
> > instance, it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >>> enable
> > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> use of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> SSL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > mutual
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> client
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > authentication on one
> > port
> > > > or
> > > > > > > >>> different
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> certificate
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> chains
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> on
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > another.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > And
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > it avoids the need
> for
> > SASL
> > > > > > > >>> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> negotiation.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > Kafka would have the
> > same
> > > > > > > >>> "*security
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> protocols"
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> *defined as
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > today,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > (a single)
> configurable
> > > > SASL
> > > > > > > >>> mechanism.
> > > > > > > >>> > > To
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> have
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> different
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> configurations
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > a protocol within a
> > broker,
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > > >>> can
> > > > > > > >>> > > define
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> new
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> protocol
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > names
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > which
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> are
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > configured versions
> of
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > > >>> > > protocols,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> perhaps
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> using
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> just
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > configuration
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > entries and no
> > additional
> > > > > code.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > For example:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > A single mechanism
> > broker
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> configured
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> as:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > listeners=SASL_SSL://:9092
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > sasl.mechanism=GSSAPI
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > sasl.kerberos.class.name
> > > > > =kafka
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > ...
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > And a multi-mechanism
> > > > broker
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> configured
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> as:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > listeners=gssapi://:9092,plain://:9093,custom://:9094
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > gssapi.security.protocol=SASL_SSL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > gssapi.sasl.mechanism=GSSAPI
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > gssapi.sasl.kerberos.class.name
> > > > > > > >>> =kafka
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > ...
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > plain.security.protocol=SASL_SSL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > plain.sasl.mechanism=PLAIN
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > ..
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> custom.security.protocol=SASL_PLAINTEXT
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > custom.sasl.mechanism=CUSTOM
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > custom.sasl.callback.handler.class=example.CustomCallbackHandler
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > This is still a big
> > change
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> affects
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> currently
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > fixed
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > enumeration of
> security
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> definitions,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> but
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> one
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > more
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > flexible than
> defining
> > > > every
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >>> SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> as a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> new
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > security
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > protocol.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016
> at
> > > > 12:20
> > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > >>> Rajini
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Sivaram <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > As Ismael has said,
> > we do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >>> have a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> requirement to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> support
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > protocols in a
> > broker.
> > > > But
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > >>> agree with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> Jun's
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> observation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > some
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > companies might
> want
> > to
> > > > > > > support a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> different
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> authentication
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > internal users or
> > > > partners.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > >>> > > instance,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> do
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> use
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> two
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > different
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > authentication
> > > > mechanisms,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>> just so
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> happens
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> are
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > able
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > to use
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > certificate-based
> > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> internal
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> users,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > hence
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > require multiple
> SASL
> > > > > > > mechanisms
> > > > > > > >>> in a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> broker.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > As Tao has pointed
> > out,
> > > > > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> negotiation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> is a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> common
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > usage
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> pattern.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Many existing
> > protocols
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> support
> > > > > > > >>> > > SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> do
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> already
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> use
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > this
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> pattern. AMQP
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > (
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/amqp/core/v1.0/os/amqp-core-security-v1.0-os.html#type-sasl-mechanisms
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> ),
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > which, as a
> messaging
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > >>> maybe
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> closer
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> Kafka
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> use
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > cases
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> than
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > Zookeeper, is an
> > example.
> > > > > > Other
> > > > > > > >>> > > examples
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> where
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> client
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > negotiates
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > sends SASL
> mechanism
> > to
> > > > > > server
> > > > > > > >>> include
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> ACAP
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> that is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> used
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> as
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > an
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> example in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > the SASL RFCs,
> POP3,
> > > > LDAP,
> > > > > > SMTP
> > > > > > > >>> etc.
> > > > > > > >>> > > This
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> not to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> say
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > shouldn't use a
> > different
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> selection
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > fits
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> better with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > the existing Kafka
> > > > design.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> negotiation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> is a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > common
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > pattern
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > since we typically
> > turn
> > > > on
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> javax.net.debug to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> debug
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> TLS
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > negotiation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> issues,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > having to use Kafka
> > > > logging
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> debug
> > > > > > > >>> > > SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> negotiation
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > issues
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > dissimilar.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016
> > at
> > > > 6:12
> > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > >>> tao
> > > > > > > >>> > > xiao <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > xiaotao...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> I am the author of
> > > > > KIP-44. I
> > > > > > > >>> hope my
> > > > > > > >>> > > use
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> case
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> will
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> add
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > some
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > values
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> to this
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> discussion. The
> > reason I
> > > > > > > raised
> > > > > > > >>> KIP44
> > > > > > > >>> > > is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> that I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> want
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > able
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> implement a custom
> > > > > security
> > > > > > > >>> protocol
> > > > > > > >>> > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> can
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> fulfill
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > of my
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> company. As
> pointed
> > out
> > > > by
> > > > > > > >>> Ismael
> > > > > > > >>> > > KIP-43
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> now
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> supports a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > pluggable
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> way to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> inject custom
> > security
> > > > > > > provider
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > SASL I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> think
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> it is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > enough
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> cover the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> use case I have
> and
> > > > > address
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > concerns
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> raised in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> KIP-44.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> For multiple
> > security
> > > > > > > protocols
> > > > > > > >>> > > support
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> simultaneously
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > not
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> needed in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> my use case and I
> > don't
> > > > > > > foresee
> > > > > > > >>> it is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> needed in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> future
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > but
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > as i
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> said
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> this is my use
> case
> > only
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >>> may be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> other
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> use
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> cases
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> But if
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> we want to support
> > it in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> future I
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> prefer to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> get
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > right
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> first
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> place given the
> fact
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> security
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> protocol
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> an
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> ENUM
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > if
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> stick to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> that
> implementation
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > >>> hard to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> extend
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > future
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > when we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> decide
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> multiple security
> > > > > protocols
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> needed.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> Protocol
> > negotiation is
> > > > a
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > >>> common
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> usage
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> pattern
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > security
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> domain. As
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> suggested in Java
> > SASL
> > > > doc
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/sasl/sasl-refguide.html
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> client
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> first sends out a
> > packet
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> server and
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> server
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> responds
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > with
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > list
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> mechanisms it
> > supports.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> very
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> similar to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> SSL/TLS
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > negotiation.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016
> > at
> > > > > 06:39
> > > > > > > >>> Ismael
> > > > > > > >>> > > Juma <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ism...@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > On Mon, Feb 1,
> > 2016 at
> > > > > > 7:04
> > > > > > > >>> PM, Gwen
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Shapira
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> <
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > g...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > Looking at
> > "existing
> > > > > > > >>> solutions",
> > > > > > > >>> > > it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> looks
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> like
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Zookeeper
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > allows
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> plugging
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > any SASL
> > mechanism,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> server
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> will
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> only
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> support
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > one
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> mechanism at
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > time.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > This was the
> > original
> > > > > > > >>> proposal from
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> Rajini as
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > enough
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> their
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > needs.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > If this is
> good
> > > > enough
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> our
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> use-case
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> (do we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > actually
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > need to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> support
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > multiple
> > mechanisms
> > > > at
> > > > > > > >>> once?), it
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> will
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> simplify
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> life a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > lot
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> us (
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/Zookeeper+and+SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > )
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > The current
> > thinking
> > > > is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> useful
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > support
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> multiple SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > simultaneously.
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > KIP
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> meeting,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> Jun
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > mentioned
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> companies
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > sometimes
> support
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> authentication
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> mechanisms
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> partners, for
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > example. It does
> > make
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > >>> more
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> complex, as
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> you
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> say,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > so
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > we
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > need
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> to be
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > sure the
> > complexity is
> > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > >>> it.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > Two more points:
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > 1. It has been
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> custom
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> security
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> protocol
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > support is
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> needed by
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> > some (KIP-44).
> > Rajini
> > > > > > > enhanced
> > > > > > > >>> > > KIP-43
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> so
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> that a
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> SASL
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > mechanism
> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [Message clipped]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajini
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> >
>
--
Regards,
Rajini
