Hi Stanislav, For the point that Ron made above for:
public OAuthBearerExtensionsValidatorCallback(OAuthBearerToken token, SaslExtensions extensions) I don't think we should ever invoke extensions callback without the token. We can first validate the token and invoke extensions callback only if token is non-null. Can we clarify that in the javadoc? - public SaslExtensions extensions() : Extensions should be non-null - public OAuthBearerToken token() : Token should be non-null Also agree with Ron that we should have the ability to return errors for all invalid extensions, even if a callback handler may choose to stop on first failure. I think we also need another method to return the extensions that were validated and will be made available as negotiated properties. As per the RFC, server should ignore unknown extensions. So callback handlers need to be able to validate the ones they know of and return those. Other extensions should not be added to the SaslServer's negotiated properties. - public SaslExtensions validatedExtensions() On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Stanislav. Here are a few KIP comments. > > <<<There are also additional regex validations for extension name and > values to ensure they conform to the OAuth standard > It is the SASL/OAUTHBEARER standard that defines the regular expressions > (specifically, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7628#section-3.1) rather > than > any of the OAuth specifications. It would be good to make this > clarification. > > <<<public OAuthBearerExtensionsValidatorCallback(OAuthBearerToken token, > SaslExtensions extensions) > This constructor lacks Javadoc in the KIP. Could you add it, and also > indicate which of the two parameters are required vs. optional? The > Javadoc for the token() method indicates that the return value could be > null, but that would only be true if the constructor accepted a null value > for the token. I'm okay with the constructor accepting a null token > (Rajini, you may differ in opinion, in which case I defer to your > preference). But please do clarify this issue. > > I also am not sure if exposing just one invalid extension name and error > message in the OAuthBearerExtensionsValidatorCallback class is good > enough. An alternative to invalidExtensionName() and errorMessage() > methods would be to return an always non-null but potentially empty > Map<String, String> so that potentially all of the provided extensions > could be validated and the list of invalid extension names could be > returned (along with the error message for each of them). If we adopted > this alternative then the error(String invalidExtensionName, String > errorMessage) method might need to be renamed addError(String > invalidExtensionName, String errorMessage). I suspect it would be better > to go with the map approach to support returning multiple error messages > even if the default unsecured token validator implementation only adds the > first invalid extension name -- at least it would allow others to be more > complete if they wish. It might also be worth discussing whether a has > Error() method would be appropriate to add (returning true if the map is > non-empty). I don't have a strong preference on the issue of supporting 1 > vs. multiple errors (though I lean slightly towards supporting multiple > errors). I defer to the preference of others in this regard. > > Finally, now that we are actually validating extensions, the comment that > "An attempt to use [auth] will result in an exception" might cause > confusion and perhaps needs to be clarified to state that the exception > occurs on the client side before the extensions are sent to the server > rather than during extension validation on the server side (e.g. "An > attempt to send [auth] will result in an exception on the client"). > > Ron > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:22 AM Stanislav Kozlovski < > stanis...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hi Rajini, Ron > > > > I've updated the KIP with the latest changes following our discussion. > > Please do give it a read. If you feel it is alright, I will follow up > with > > a PR later. > > > > Best, > > Stanislav > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:09 AM Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Ron/Stansilav, > > > > > > OK, let's just go with 2. I think it would be better to add a > > > OAuth-specific extensions handler OAuthBearerExtensionsValidator > Callback > > > that > > > provides OAuthBearerToken. > > > > > > To summarise, we chose option 2 out of these four options: > > > > > > 1. {OAuthBearerValidatorCallback, SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback} > : > > We > > > don't want to use multiple ordered callbacks since we don't want the > > > context of one callback to come from another.callback, > > > 2. OAuthBearerExtensionsValidatorCallback(OAuthBearerToken token, > > > SaslExtensions ext): This allows extensions to be validated using > > > context from the token, we are ok with this. > > > 3. SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback(Map<String, Object> context, > > > SaslExtensions ext): This doesn't really offer any real advantage > over > > > 2. > > > 4. OAuthBearerValidatorCallback(String token, SaslExtensions ext): > We > > > don't want token validator to see extensions since these are > insecure > > > but > > > token validation needs to be secure. So we prefer to use a second > > > callback > > > handler to validate extensions after securely validating token. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Rajini. I think we are considering the following two options. > Let > > me > > > > try to describe them along with their relative > > advantages/disadvantages. > > > > > > > > Option #1: Send two callbacks in a single array to the callback > > handler: > > > > ch.handle(new Callback[] {tokenCallback, extensionsCallback}); > > > > > > > > Option #2: Send two callbacks separately, in two separate arrays, to > > the > > > > callback handler: > > > > ch.handle(new Callback[] {tokenCallback}); > > > > ch.handle(new Callback[] {extensionsCallback}); > > > > > > > > I actually don't see any objective disadvantage with #1. If we don't > > get > > > > an exception then we know we have the information we need; if we do > get > > > an > > > > exception then we can tell if the first callback was handled because > > > either > > > > its token() method or its errorStatus() method will return non-null; > if > > > > both return null then we just send the token callback by itself and > we > > > > don't publish any extension as negotiated properties. There is no > > > > possibility of partial results, and I don't think there is a > > performance > > > > penalty due to potential re-validation here, either. > > > > > > > > I see a subjective disadvantage with #1. It feels awkward to me to > > > > provide the token as context for extension validation via the first > > > > callback. > > > > > > > > Actually, it just occurred to me why it feels awkward, and I think > this > > > is > > > > an objective disadvantage of this approach. It would be impossible > to > > do > > > > extension validation in such a scenario without also doing token > > > validation > > > > first. We are using the first callback as a way to provide context, > > but > > > we > > > > are also using that first callback to request token validation. We > are > > > > complecting two separate things -- context and a request for > validation > > > -- > > > > into one thing, so this approach has an element of complexity to it. > > > > > > > > The second option has no such complexity. If we want to provide > > context > > > to > > > > the extension validation then we do that by adding a token to the > > > > extensionsCallback instance before we provide it to the callback > > handler. > > > > How we do that -- whether by Map<String, Object> or via a typed > getter > > -- > > > > feels like a subjective decision, and assuming you agree with the > > > > complexity argument and choose option #2, I would defer to your > > > preference > > > > as to how to implement it. > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:10 PM Rajini Sivaram < > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I was thinking of a SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback with > > > additional > > > > > context as well initially, but I didn't like the idea of name-value > > > pairs > > > > > and I didn't want generic objects passed around through the > callback > > > So > > > > > providing context through other callbacks felt like a neater fit. > > There > > > > > are pros and cons for both approaches, so we could go with either. > > > > > > > > > > Callbacks are provided to callback handlers in an array and there > is > > > > > implicit ordering in the callbacks provided to the callback > handler. > > > > > In the typical example of {NameCallback, PasswordCallback}, we > expect > > > > that > > > > > ordering so that password callback knows what the user name is. > Kafka > > > > > guarantees ordering of server callbacks in each of its SASL > > mechanisms > > > > and > > > > > this is explicitly stated in > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > 86%3A+Configurable+SASL+callback+handlers > > > > > . > > > > > Until now, we didn't need to worry about ordering for OAuth. > > > > > > > > > > We currently do not have any optional callbacks - configured > callback > > > > > handlers have to process all the callbacks for the mechanism or > else > > we > > > > > fail authentication. We have to make SaslExtensionValidationCallbac > k > > an > > > > > exception, at least for backward compatibility. We will only > include > > > this > > > > > callback if the client provided some extensions. I think it is > > > reasonable > > > > > to expect that in general, custom callback handlers will handle > this > > > > > callback if clients are likely to set extensions. In case it > > doesn't, > > > we > > > > > don't want to make any assumptions about which callbacks may have > > been > > > > > handled. Instead, it would be better to invoke the callback handler > > > again > > > > > without the extensions callback and not expose any extensions as > > > > negotiated > > > > > properties. Since we are doing this only for backward > compatibility, > > > the > > > > > small performance hit would be reasonable, avoiding any assumptions > > > about > > > > > the callback handler implementation and partial results on hitting > an > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > Back to the other approach of providing a Map. For OAuth, we would > > like > > > > > extension validation to see the actual OAuthBearerToken object, for > > > > > instance to validate extensions based on scope. Having > > > > > these mechanism-specific objects in a Map doesn't feel ideal. It > will > > > > > probably be better to define OAuthBearerExtensionsValidator > Callback > > > > with a > > > > > token getter that returns OAuthBearerToken in that case. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajini. I also like that idea, but I think it might rely on > one > > > or > > > > > > possibly two implicit assumptions that I'm not sure are > guaranteed > > to > > > > be > > > > > > true. First, I'm not sure if the CallbackHandler interface > > > guarantees > > > > > that > > > > > > implementations must process callbacks in order. Second (and > more > > > > > > plausibly than the first), I'm not sure CallbackHandler > guarantees > > > that > > > > > > callbacks are to be processed in order until either there are no > > more > > > > > left > > > > > > in the array or one of the elements is an unsupported callback. > > The > > > > > > Javadoc simply says it throws UnsupportedCallbackException "if > the > > > > > > implementation of this method does not support one or more of the > > > > > Callbacks > > > > > > specified in the callbacks parameter." This statement does not > > > preclude > > > > > the > > > > > > case that implementations might first check to make sure all of > the > > > > > > provided callbacks are supported before processing any of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > We could update the Javadoc for AuthenticateCallbackHandler to > make > > > it > > > > > > clear how implementations must work -- i.e. they must process the > > > > > callbacks > > > > > > in order, and they must process all recognized callbacks before > > > > throwing > > > > > > UnsupportedCallbackException due to an unrecognized one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the above issue does not arise if we simply want the > > > ability > > > > to > > > > > > validate SASL extensions in isolation -- we could just give the > > > > callback > > > > > > handler an array containing a single instance of the proposed > > > > > > SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback.The issue only arises if we > want to > > > > > > provide > > > > > > additional context (e.g. the token in the case of > SASL/OATHBEARER) > > to > > > > the > > > > > > validation mechanism. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is not just SASL Extension validation that we are > interested > > in > > > > > > adding but in fact we want to be able to provide additional > context > > > to > > > > > > SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback, then adding the ordering > > constraint > > > > > above > > > > > > is one way, but we could avoid the constraint by allowing > > > > > > SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback to accept not only the > extensions > > to > > > > > > validate but also an arbitrary map of name/value pairs. Each > SASL > > > > > > mechanism implementation could declare what additional context it > > > > > provides > > > > > > (if any) and at what key(s) the information is available. This > > > second > > > > > > approach feels more direct than the first one and would be my > > > > preference > > > > > > (assuming I',m not missing anything, which is certainly > possible). > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:39 PM Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That approach makes more sense to me. I like it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:35 PM Rajini Sivaram < > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ron/Stanislav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think it makes sense to separate out > > > > > > OAuthBearerValidatorCallback > > > > > > > > and SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback so that it is clearer > that > > > > these > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > two separate entities that need validation? When we add > support > > > > > > > > for customisable extensions in other mechanisms, we could > reuse > > > > > > > > SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback. We will invoke > CallbackHandler > > > > with > > > > > { > > > > > > > > OAuthBearerValidatorCallback, SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback > } > > > in > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > order like we do { NameCallback, PasswordCallback }. So > > typically > > > > we > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > to validate tokens with no reference to extensions, but we > may > > > > refer > > > > > to > > > > > > > > token to validate extensions. Only validated extensions will > be > > > > > > available > > > > > > > > as the server's negotiated properties. We will need to handle > > > > > > > > UnsupportedCallbackException for > > SaslExtensionsValidatorCallback > > > > for > > > > > > > > backwards compatibility, but that should be ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree we should document it thoroughly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:02 PM Ron Dagostino < > > > rndg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stanislav. If the community agrees we should add it > > then > > > we > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > at a > > > > > > > > > > minimum add explicit warnings in the Javadoc making it > very > > > > clear > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > should not be used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:54 AM Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Ron, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I fully agree that token validation is a serious > security > > > > > > > operation. > > > > > > > > > > > Although, I believe allowing the user to do more > > validation > > > > > with > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > extensions does not hurt - the user is fully > responsible > > > for > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > security > > > > > > > > > > > once he starts implementing custom code for token > > > validation. > > > > > You > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > expect people to take the appropriate considerations > when > > > > > > > validating > > > > > > > > > > > unsecured extensions against the token. > > > > > > > > > > > I also think that using the extensions as a secondary > > > > > validation > > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > > > > might be useful. You could do your normal validation > > using > > > > the > > > > > > > token > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > then have a second sanity-check validation on top (e.g > > > > validate > > > > > > > > > > > hostname/port is what client expected). Keep in mind > that > > > the > > > > > > > server > > > > > > > > > > > exposes the properties via `getNegotiatedProperty` so > it > > > > makes > > > > > > > sense > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > allow the server to have custom validation on the > > > extensions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:29 PM Ron Dagostino < > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stanislav. If you wanted to do this a good way > > might > > > be > > > > > to > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > constructor to the org.apache.kafka.common. > > > > > > security.oauthbearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > OAuthBearerValidatorCallback class that accepts a > > > > > > SaslExtensions > > > > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > > > > > in addition to a token value. Then it would give the > > > > > callback > > > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > option to introspect the callback to see what > > extensions > > > > were > > > > > > > > > provided > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > token. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, token validation is a very > > > > > security-sensitive > > > > > > > > > > operation, > > > > > > > > > > > > and it would be a serious security issue if the > result > > of > > > > > > > applying > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > validation algorithm (which yields a valid vs. not > > valid > > > > > > > > > determination) > > > > > > > > > > > > depended on anything provided by the client other > than > > > the > > > > > > actual > > > > > > > > > token > > > > > > > > > > > > value. Nobody should ever allow the client to > specify > > a > > > > JWK > > > > > > Set > > > > > > > > URL, > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > example, or a whitelist of acceptable domains for > > > > retrieving > > > > > > JWK > > > > > > > > > Sets. > > > > > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > > > feels to me that while a use case might exist (some > > kind > > > of > > > > > > trace > > > > > > > > ID, > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > example, to aid in debugging), someone might > > > inadvertently > > > > > hang > > > > > > > > > > > themselves > > > > > > > > > > > > if we give them the rope. The risk vs. reward value > > > > > > proposition > > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't feel like a good one at first glance. > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:04 AM Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > > > > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey everybody, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for reviving this, but I neglected something > > the > > > > > first > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe it would be useful to provide the > > > > > > > > > > > > > `OAuthBearerUnsecuredValidatorCallbackHandler` > with > > the > > > > > > OAuth > > > > > > > > > > > extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > too. This would enable use cases where validators > > want > > > to > > > > > > > > reconcile > > > > > > > > > > > > > information from the extensions with the token (e.g > > if > > > > > users > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > implemented secured OAuth tokens). > > > > > > > > > > > > > The implementation would be to instantiate > > > > > > > > > > > > > `OAuthBearerUnsecuredValidatorCallback` with the > > > > extensions > > > > > > > (also > > > > > > > > > > leave > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > current constructor, as its a public class). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are everybody's thoughts on this? If there are > > no > > > > > > > > objections, > > > > > > > > > > I'll > > > > > > > > > > > > > update the KIP in due time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:14 AM Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good. Thanks, Stanislav. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Stanislav > > Kozlovski > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I updated the KIP. Please check if the > > > clarification > > > > is > > > > > > > okay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:49 AM Rajini > Sivaram < > > > > > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stanislav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Can you clarify the following line in the > > KIP > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > 'Public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interfaces' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > section? When you are reading the KIP for the > > > first > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > sounds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding a new Kafka config. But we are adding > > JAAS > > > > > > config > > > > > > > > > > options > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prefix that can be used with the default > > > unsecured > > > > > > bearer > > > > > > > > > > tokens. > > > > > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > include the example in this section or at > least > > > > link > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - New config option for default, unsecured > > > > bearer > > > > > > > > tokens - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `unsecuredLoginExtension_< > extensionname>`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Can you add the package for > > > > SaslExtensionsCallback > > > > > > > > class? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Stanislav > > > > > Kozlovski < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. I have applied > > them > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:39 PM Ron > > Dagostino < > > > > > > > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stanislav. The statement "New config > > > option > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OAuthBearerLoginModule" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is technically incorrect; it should be > "New > > > > > config > > > > > > > > option > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsecured bearer tokens" since that is > what > > > > > > provides > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functionality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opposed to the login module, which does > > not). > > > > > > Also, > > > > > > > > > please > > > > > > > > > > > > state > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "auth" is not supported as a custom > > extension > > > > > name > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SASL/OAUTHBEARER mechanism, including the > > > > > unsecured > > > > > > > > one, > > > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved by the spec for what is normally > > > sent > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > HTTP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authorization > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > header an attempt to use it will result > in > > a > > > > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, please also state that while the > > > > > > > > > > > > OAuthBearerLoginModule > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OAuthBearerSaslClient will be changed to > > > > request > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > callback handler, for backwards > > compatibility > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > callback handler to support > > > > > SaslExtensionsCallback > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UnsupportedCallbackException that is > thrown > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > ignored > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > extensions will be added. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM > Stanislav > > > > > > Kozlovski > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey everybody, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have updated the KIP to reflect the > > > latest > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > best > > > > > > > > > > > > > as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there aren't more suggestions, I intent > > to > > > > > start > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > [VOTE] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:34 AM Ron > > > > Dagostino < > > > > > > > > > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stanislav. Could you update the > KIP > > > to > > > > > > > reflect > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > latest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SaslExtensions and confirm or correct > > the > > > > > > impact > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SCRAM-related classes? I'm not sure > if > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > currently-described > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still accurate. Also, could you > > mention > > > > the > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OAuthBearerUnsecuredLoginCallbackHandler > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > text in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > addition to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the examples? The examples show the > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsecuredLoginExtension_< > extensionName> > > > > > > feature, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described anywhere prior to it > > appearing > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:42 PM Ron > > > > > Dagostino < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajini. I think a class is fine > > as > > > > long > > > > > > as > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > semantics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of immutability are clear -- it > would > > > > have > > > > > to > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constructor that accepts a Map as > > input > > > > > would > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > copy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Map > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than store it in a member variable. > > > > > > Similarly, > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > Map > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return would have to be > unmodifiable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM > > Rajini > > > > > > > Sivaram < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Ron, Stanislav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I agree with Stanislav that it > would > > > be > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > leave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `SaslExtensions` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> a class rather than make it an > > > > interface. > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > don''t > > > > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> extends this class, so it is > > > convenient > > > > to > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> users need to create an instance. > > The > > > > > class > > > > > > > > > provided > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> should be sufficient in the vast > > > > majority > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:35 AM, > > Ron > > > > > > > Dagostino > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Stanislav. See > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/ > > > > rfc7628#section-3.1, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > that section refers to the core > > ABNF > > > > > > > > productions > > > > > > > > > > > > defined > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234#appendix-B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:30 AM, > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > Kozlovski < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Hey Ron and Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Here are my thoughts: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Regarding separators in > > > > > SaslExtensions - > > > > > > > > > Agreed, > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Should definitely not be a > > concern > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > CallbackHandler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LoginModule > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > implementors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > SaslExtensions interface - > > > Wouldn't > > > > > > > > > implementing > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> mean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > that users will have to make > > sure > > > > > > they're > > > > > > > > > > passing > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unmodifiable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> map > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > themselves. I believe it would > > be > > > > > better > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > enforced > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > class > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > constructors instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > SaslExtensions#map() - I'd > also > > > > prefer > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > went > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > `extensionValue` and > > > > `extensionNames` > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figured > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> sense > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to have `ScramExtensions` > extend > > > > > > > > > > `SaslExtensions` > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > therefore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > API be similar. In the end, do > > you > > > > > think > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > `ScramExtensions` extend > > > > > > `SaslExtensions`? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > @Ron, could you point me to > the > > > SASL > > > > > > OAuth > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regular > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > expressions for keys/values > you > > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7628 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7628 > > > > ) > > > > > ? > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > originally implementing this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:46 > PM > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > Dagostino < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Hi again, Rajini and > Stanislav. > > > I > > > > > > wonder > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SaslExtensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> interface rather than a class > > > might > > > > > be > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > > > > > solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> public interface > > SaslExtensions { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> /** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> * @return an immutable map > > > view > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > SASL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Map<String, String> map(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> This solves the issue of lack > > of > > > > > > clarity > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > immutability, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> eliminates copying, like > this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> SaslExtensions myMethod() { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Map<String, String> > > myRetval = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > getUnmodifiableSaslExtensionsMap(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> return new > SaslExtensions() > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> public Map<String, > > String> > > > > > > map() { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> return myRetval; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Alternatively, we could do it > > > like > > > > > > this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> /** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> * Supplier that returns > > immutable > > > > map > > > > > > > view > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > SASL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> public interface > SaslExtensions > > > > > extends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Supplier<Map<String, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> String>> { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> // empty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> The we could simply return > the > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > this, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > copying: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> SaslExtensions myMethod() { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Map<String, String> > > myRetval = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > getUnmodifiableSaslExtensionsMap(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> return () -> myRetval; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> I think the main reason for > > > making > > > > > > > > > > SaslExtensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> interface is to avoid adding > a > > > Map > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > Subject's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> credentials. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Making SaslExtensions an > > > interface > > > > > > meets > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > allows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> us to be free to implement > > > whatever > > > > > we > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > > > > internally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at > 12:45 > > PM > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > Dagostino < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Hi Rajini. The SaslServer > is > > > > going > > > > > to > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> extensions, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> too, but I’m okay with > keeping > > > the > > > > > > > > > validation > > > > > > > > > > > > logic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> can be reused in both the > > client > > > > and > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > secret. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> I strongly prefer exposing a > > > map() > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > opposed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > extensionNames() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> and extensionValue(String) > > > > methods. > > > > > It > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> instead > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> of 1), and it gives clients > of > > > the > > > > > API > > > > > > > > full > > > > > > > > > > > > > > map-related > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> functionality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> (there’s a lot of support > for > > > > > dealing > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > maps > > > > > > > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variety > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ways). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Regardless of whether we go > > > with a > > > > > > map() > > > > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > extensionNames() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> extensionValue(String) > > methods, > > > > the > > > > > > > > > semantics > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mutability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> clear. I think either way > we > > > > should > > > > > > > never > > > > > > > > > > > share a > > > > > > > > > > > > > map > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> else > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> could possibly mutate — > > either a > > > > map > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > someone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > map > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> might expose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> On Jul 22, 2018, at 11:23 > AM, > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > Sivaram > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> Hmm.... I think we need a > > much > > > > > > simpler > > > > > > > > > > > > > SaslExtensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> making it part of the > public > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> 1. I don't see the point of > > > > > including > > > > > > > > > > separator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anywhere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> SaslExtensions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> Extensions provide a map > and > > we > > > > > > > propagate > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > map > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > server > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> using the protocol > associated > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> separator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> not configurable and should > > not > > > > be > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > concern > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> SaslExtensionsCallback > > > interface > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > provides > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> SaslExtensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> 2. I agree with Ron that we > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism-specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> values from SaslExtensions. > > > But I > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> appropriate `SaslClient` > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> I think we could just have > a > > > very > > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > > > > extensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> everything else to > > appropriate > > > > > > internal > > > > > > > > > > classes > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> extensions. What do you > > think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> public class > SaslExtensions { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> private final Map<String, > > > > String> > > > > > > > > > > > extensionMap; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> public > > > > SaslExtensions(Map<String, > > > > > > > > String> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > extensionMap) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> this.extensionMap = > > > > > > extensionMap; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> public String > > > > > extensionValue(String > > > > > > > > > name) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> return > > > > > extensionMap.get(name); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> public Set<String> > > > > > > extensionNames() { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> return > > > > extensionMap.keySet(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at > 9:01 > > > PM, > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > Dagostino < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Hi Stanislav and Rajini. > If > > > > > > > > > SaslExtensions > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > going > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> API, then it occurred to > me > > > that > > > > > one > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SASL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> extensions is that the > keys > > > and > > > > > > values > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > match > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> mechanism-specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> regular expressions. For > > > > example, > > > > > > RFC > > > > > > > > > 5802 > > > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5802 > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > specifies > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regular > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> expressions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> the SCRAM-specific SASL > > > > > mechanisms, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > 7628 ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7628 > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > specifies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regular > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> expressions for the > > > OAUTHBEARER > > > > > SASL > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> SaslExtensions class > should > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > > > provide a > > > > > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> keys > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> and values match the > > > appropriate > > > > > > > regular > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> think of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> something along the lines > of > > > the > > > > > > below > > > > > > > > > > > > definition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> SaslExtensions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> class? It is missing > > Javadoc > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toString()/hashCode()/equals() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> methods, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> of course, but aside from > > > that, > > > > do > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sufficient > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> appropriate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> public class > SaslExtensions > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> private final > Map<String, > > > > > String> > > > > > > > > > > > > extensionsMap; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> public > > SaslExtensions(String > > > > > > mapStr, > > > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keyValueSeparator, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> String > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> elementSeparator, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Pattern > > > > > > > saslNameRegexPattern, > > > > > > > > > > > Pattern > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> saslValueRegexPattern) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > this(Utils.parseMap(mapStr, > > > > > > > > > > > > > keyValueSeparator, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> elementSeparator), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> saslNameRegexPattern, > > > > > > > > > > saslValueRegexPattern); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > >
