[jose] POLL(s): header criticality
Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> Mon, 04 February 2013 14:48 UTC
Return-Path: <odonoghue@isoc.org>
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 55CEC21F8461 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 06:48:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Qu80IUTHfYfJ for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 06:48:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp136.dfw.emailsrvr.com (smtp136.dfw.emailsrvr.com [67.192.241.136]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10CE21F8460 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 06:48:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp23.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 6206D2F8678 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:48:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp23.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: odonoghue-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id 3CEDC2F864A for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:48:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:48:34 -0500
From: Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Organization: ISOC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jose@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: odonoghue@isoc.org
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: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:48:31 -0000
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.)
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Edmund Jay
- [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality John Bradley
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Dick Hardt
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Breno de Medeiros
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Breno de Medeiros
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality George Fletcher
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Dick Hardt
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality sebastien.brault
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Brian Campbell
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Eric Rescorla
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Peter Yee
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality hideki nara
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Ryo Ito
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Roland Hedberg
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality charles.marais@orange.com
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Casper Biering
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Manger, James H
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Dirkjan Ochtman
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality nov matake
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Andreas Åkre Solberg
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Prateek Mishra
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Salvatore D'Agostino
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Russ Housley
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality HAYASHI, Tatsuya