IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EAB21F85F7 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:33:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7Pmcqb2FDuS for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-bl2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F025021F85F3 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:33:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD004.protection.gbl (10.173.161.204) by BL2FFO11HUB002.protection.gbl (10.173.161.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.609.9; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:33:13 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD004.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.609.9 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:33:13 +0000
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (157.54.51.112) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:32:36 +0000
Received: from mail191-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.220) by CO1EHSOBE041.bigfish.com (10.243.66.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:32:35 +0000
Received: from mail191-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail191-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D3DB80112 for <jose@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:32:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.240.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -18
X-BigFish: PS-18(zz9371I542I4015Izz1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1082kzz1033IL8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail191-co1: transitioning domain of microsoft.com does not designate 157.56.240.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.21; envelope-from=tonynad@microsoft.com; helo=BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:SKI; SFS:; DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:-1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB034; H:BLUPR03MB035.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; LANG:en;
Received: from mail191-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail191-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 136015750598043_26221; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:31:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS006.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.209]) by mail191-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1881B80063; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:31:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.21) by CO1EHSMHS006.bigfish.com (10.243.66.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:31:32 +0000
Received: from BLUPR03MB034.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.209.146) by BL2PRD0310HT005.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.97.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.263.1; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:31:28 +0000
Received: from BLUPR03MB035.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.209.147) by BLUPR03MB034.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.209.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.614.5; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:31:26 +0000
Received: from BLUPR03MB035.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.43]) by BLUPR03MB035.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.43]) with mapi id 15.00.0614.003; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:31:08 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: "odonoghue@isoc.org" <odonoghue@isoc.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality
Thread-Index: AQHOAubI31Jq8I0kZEy/u/RwQgNlUZhs1l6Q
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:31:08 +0000
Message-ID: <671a8c65ee53425db220e3ccc3faf544@BLUPR03MB035.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.134.220.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: BLUPR03MB034.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%ISOC.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%corpf5vips-237160.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(164054002)(13464002)(189002)(377454001)(20776003)(50466001)(16676001)(79102001)(74502001)(74662001)(51856001)(33646001)(47446002)(5343655001)(47736001)(56816002)(44976002)(31966008)(4396001)(53806001)(47976001)(54316002)(49866001)(6806001)(50986001)(56776001)(23726001)(77982001)(54356001)(47776003)(63696002)(46406002)(76482001)(46102001)(59766001)(65816001)(42262001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB002; H:TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0749DC2CE6
Subject: Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:33:19 -0000

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

-----Original Message-----
From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 6:49 AM
To: jose@ietf.org
Subject: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality

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
jose@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email