<div dir="ltr"><div>Even,</div><div><br></div><div>At the very least, the new file duplicates storage of credentials that may already be stored in cloud-specific credentials files, and creates a new way for users to expose their secrets. Also, cloud providers and organizations have moved or are moving to focusing on short-lived credentials, SSO, etc. How useful is a cross-cloud credentials file if it supports only static credentials? Why not support named profiles already defined in cloud-specific files? Python and C++ programmers haven't needed this framework because they can maintain their own maps of credentials or roles to resources, so I guess this feature is mainly for command line users? Do command line users do this kind of thing enough to warrant a new framework?<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:45 AM Even Rouault <<a href="mailto:even.rouault@spatialys.com">even.rouault@spatialys.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Sean,</p>
<p>I saw them as business-as-usual enhancements not impacting the
software in fundamental ways. I'm not sure what I would put in a
RFC that is not in their commit message. Maybe I don't understand
what your concern is.</p>
<p>Even<br>
</p>
<div>Le 24/03/2022 à 15:28, Sean Gillies a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The intent and scope of the features developed in <a href="https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/5463" target="_blank">https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/5463</a>
and <a href="https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/5390" target="_blank">https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/5390</a>
seem rather big and unclear to me. This seems to me to warrant
an RFC. Yes? No?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Sean Gillies</div></div>