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

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

________________________________
From: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
To: jose@ietf.org
Sent: Mon, February 4, 2013 6:48:35 AM
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