Greetings, * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 09:46:58PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Not without breaking things we support today and for what seems like an > > unclear benefit given that we've got channel binding today (though > > perhaps we need to make sure there's ways to force it on both sides to > > be on and to encourage everyone to do that- which is what this change is > > generally about, I think). > > > > As I recall, the reason we do it the way we do is because the SASL spec > > that SCRAM is implemented under requires the username to be utf8 encoded > > while we support other encodings, and I don't think we want to break > > non-utf8 usage. > > Yup, I remember this one, the encoding not being enforced by the > protocol has been quite an issue when this was implemented, still I > was wondering whether that's something that could be worth revisiting > at some degree.
To the extent that there was an issue when it was implemented ... it's now been implemented and so that was presumably overcome (though I don't really specifically recall what the issues were there? Seems like it wouldn't matter at this point though), so I don't understand why we would wish to revisit it. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
