Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

FIRST POLL:  YES
SECOND POLL:  YES
THIRD POLL:  A

Charles Marais.

Le 07/02/2013 03:07, hideki nara a écrit :

FIRST POLL:  YES
SECOND POLL:  YES
THIRD POLL:  A

---
hideki nara

2013/2/4 Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>:

Folks,

I am wrestling with how to help drive consensus on the topic of criticality
of headers. For background, please review the current specification text,
the minutes to the Atlanta meeting (IETF85), and the mailing list
(especially the discussion in December with (Subj: Whether implementations
must understand all JOSE header fields)). We need to come to closure on this
issue in order to progress the specifications.

As a tool to gather further information on determining a way forward, the
following polls have been created. Please respond before 11 February 2013.

Thanks,
Karen

*******************
FIRST POLL: Should all header fields be critical for implementations to
understand?

YES – All header fields must continue to be understood by implementations or
the input must be rejected.

NO – A means of listing that specific header fields may be safely ignored
should be defined.

********************
SECOND POLL: Should the result of the first poll be "YES", should text like
the following be added? “Implementation Note: The requirement to understand
all header fields is a requirement on the system as a whole – not on any
particular level of library software. For instance, a JOSE library could
process the headers that it understands and then leave the processing of the
rest of them up to the application. For those headers that the JOSE library
didn’t understand, the responsibility for fulfilling the ‘MUST understand’
requirement for the remaining headers would then fall to the application.”

YES – Add the text clarifying that the “MUST understand” requirement is a
requirement on the system as a whole – not specifically on JOSE libraries.

NO – Don’t add the clarifying text.

************************
THIRD POLL: Should the result of the first poll be "NO", which syntax would
you prefer for designating the header fields that may be ignored if not
understood?

A – Define a header field that explicitly lists the fields that may be
safely ignored if not understood.

B – Introduce a second header, where implementations must understand all
fields in the first but they may ignore not-understood fields in the second.

C - Other??? (Please specify in detail.)
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

--

MARAIS Charles
FT/OLNC/OLPS/ASE/IDEA/UED
Tel : [phone]
[e-mail]
WF004Bis / R&D Lannion / 2, avenue Pierre Marzin / 22307 LANNION Cedex - France