Thanks, Boyang. Fixed. best, Colin
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, at 08:43, Boyang Chen wrote: > Thanks for the update Colin. One nit comment to fix the RPC type > for AlterScramUsersRequest as: > "apiKey": 51, > "type": "request", > "name": "AlterScramUsersRequest", > Other than that, +1 (binding) from me. > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:38 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > The API is for clients. Brokers will still listen to ZooKeeper to load > > the SCRAM information. > > > > best, > > Colin > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, at 08:30, David Arthur wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP, Colin. The new RPCs look good to me, just one > > question: > > > since we don't return the password info through the RPC, how will brokers > > > load this info? (I'm presuming that they need it to configure > > > authentication) > > > > > > -David > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:57 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020, at 10:55, Boyang Chen wrote: > > > > > Hey Colin, thanks for the KIP. One question I have about > > AlterScramUsers > > > > > RPC is whether we could consolidate the deletion list and alteration > > > > list, > > > > > since in response we only have a single list of results. The further > > > > > benefit is to reduce unintentional duplicate entries for both > > deletion > > > > and > > > > > alteration, which makes the broker side handling logic easier. > > Another > > > > > alternative is to add DeleteScramUsers RPC to align what we currently > > > > have > > > > > with other user provided data such as delegation tokens (create, > > change, > > > > > delete). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Boyang, > > > > > > > > It can't really be consolidated without some awkwardness. It's > > probably > > > > better just to create a DeleteScramUsers function and RPC. I've > > changed > > > > the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For my own education, the salt will be automatically generated by the > > > > admin > > > > > client when we send the SCRAM requests correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the client generates the salt before sending the request. > > > > > > > > best, > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Boyang > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:10 AM Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Colin! > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:49 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to call a vote for KIP-554: Add a broker-side SCRAM > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > API. The KIP is here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/ihERCQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The previous discussion thread is here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r69bdc65bdf58f5576944a551ff249d759073ecbf5daa441cff680ab0%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > David Arthur > > > > > >
