On 21 April 2017 at 14:20, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 21 April 2017 at 10:20, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: >>> But looking more closely, I think I misunderstood RFC 5803. It *does* in >>> fact specify a single string format to store the verifier in. And the format >>> looks like: >>> >>> SCRAM-SHA-256$<iteration count>:<salt>$<StoredKey>:<ServerKey> >> >> Could you explain where you are looking? I don't see that in RFC5803 > > From 1. Overview: > > Syntax of the attribute can be expressed using ABNF [RFC5234]. Non- > terminal references in the following ABNF are defined in either > [AUTHPASS], [RFC4422], or [RFC5234]. > > scram-mech = "SCRAM-SHA-1" / scram-mech-ext > ; Complies with ABNF for <scheme> > ; defined in [AUTHPASS]. > > scram-authInfo = iter-count ":" salt > ; Complies with ABNF for <authInfo> > ; defined in [AUTHPASS]. > > scram-authValue = stored-key ":" server-key > ; Complies with ABNF for <authValue> > ; defined in [AUTHPASS]. > > Thanks,
The above text, which I've already read, does not explain the suggested change from : to $. Could you explain? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
