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

["Salvatore D'Agostino" <[e-mail]>]

Yes
Yes
No strong opinion

-----Original Message-----
From: Prateek Mishra [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 4:08 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality

FIRST POLL : Yes

- cause JOSE headers are security artifacts; when present, they must not be 
ignored by a processor of JOSE objects

SECOND POLL: Yes

- the language here is a bit confusing, i think the distinction sought here is 
between a deployment instance versus a static component (library). If I 
understand the intent here, the suggestion is that a deployment instance of a 
JOSE processor should treat JOSE-defined headers as critical.

THIRD POLL: C

- high-level list of ignorable headers (vs. adding annotation to each
header)

> 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