Ismael, Thank you for your review. The main reason I didn't address the support for multiple mechanisms within a broker is because it requires changes to the wire protocol to propagate mechanisms. But I do agree that we need to understand whether it would be even harder to support this in the future. Will give it some thought and write it up in the KIP.
Regards, Rajini On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Rajini, > > Thanks for the KIP. As stated in the KIP, it does not address "Support for > multiple SASL mechanisms within a broker". Maybe we should also mention > this in the "Rejected Alternatives" section with the reasoning. I think > it's particularly relevant to understand if it's not being proposed because > we don't think it's useful or due to the additional implementation > complexity (it's probably a combination). If we think this could be useful > in the future, it would also be worth thinking about how it is affected if > we do KIP-43 first (ie will it be easier, harder, etc.) > > Thanks, > Ismael > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I have just created KIP-43 to extend the SASL implementation in Kafka to > > support new SASL mechanisms. > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-43%3A+Kafka+SASL+enhancements > > > > > > Comments and suggestions are appreciated. > > > > > > Thank you... > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajini > > >
