Thanks Michael! So proposed hash functions would be MD5, SHA1, SHA256. I can expand the motivation on the KIP but here’s where my head is at. MaskField would completely remove the value by setting it to an equivalent null value. One problem with this would be that you’d not be able to know in the case of say a password going through the mask transform it would become “” which could mean that no password was present in the message, or it was removed. However this hash transformer would remove this ambiguity if that makes sense.
Do you think there are other hash functions that should be supported as well? Thanks, Brandon Brown > On Sep 18, 2020, at 12:00 PM, Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Brandon for the KIP. > > There's already a built-in transformation (MaskField) that can > obfuscate fields. In the motivation section, it would be nice to > explain the use cases when MaskField is not suitable and when users > would need the proposed transformation. > > The KIP exposes a "function" configuration to select the hash function > to use. Which hash functions do you propose supporting? > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:43 PM <bran...@bbrownsound.com> wrote: >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-665%3A+Kafka+Connect+Hash+SMT >> >> The current pr with the proposed changes >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9057 and the original 3rd party >> contribution which initiated this change >> https://github.com/aiven/aiven-kafka-connect-transforms/issues/9#issuecomment-662378057. >> >> I'm interested in any suggestions for ways to improve this as I think >> it would make a nice addition to the existing SMTs provided by Kafka >> Connect out of the box. >> >> Thanks, >> Brandon >> >> >>
