From: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support
In-Reply-To: <20190409153624.t7cozlctjzuf47ja@momjian.us>
References: <jlg1tgq1ktm.fsf@thriss.redhat.com> <jlgy38mir81.fsf@redhat.com>
 <5ec3f734-810e-36e0-030f-af92efe135da@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20190223162751.GO6197@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <1f799b02-d766-0328-45d6-73e5674d0bc2@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CAOuzzgprZ7-gYkzwkPzMOPka62irppKpXNm219q7a_8Fu33TLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <500b1be7-d0aa-96a2-9982-d748609faff5@joeconway.com>
 <CABUevEyuNNJv=19foa=ycTfTfBUYOEwM8_Uss5OVKrwBAy+Btw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190409153624.t7cozlctjzuf47ja@momjian.us>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 13:36:26 -0400
Message-ID: <jlg7ec3krmt.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: bulk

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

> On Wed, Apr  3, 2019 at 08:49:25AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 12:22 AM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>>
>> Personally I don't find it as confusing as is either, and I find
>> hostgss to be a good analog of hostssl. On the other hand hostgssenc
>> is long and unintuitive. So +1 for leaving as is and -1 one for
>> changing it IMHO.
>>=20
>> I think for those who are well versed in pg_hba (and maybe gss as
>> well), it's not confusing. That includes me.
>>=20
>> However, for a new user, I can definitely see how it can be
>> considered confusing. And confusion in *security configuration* is
>> always a bad idea, even if it's just potential.
>>=20
>> Thus +1 on changing it.
>>=20
>> If it was on the table it might have been better to keep hostgss and
>> change the authentication method to gssauth or something, but that
>> ship sailed *years* ago.
>
> Uh, did we consider keeping hostgss and changing the auth part at the
> end to "gssauth"?

I think that was implicitly rejected because we'd have to keep the
capability to configure "gss" there else break compatibility.

Thanks,
=2D-Robbie

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=hzwQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--