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

Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sakimura@gmail.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 9667C21F871D for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:47:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 FwcpfhyYXQsr for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C92221F8A2A for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id fs13so1743578lab.36 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:47:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cKwGQFicYiNy5LsrGrPQwOJgary/cIvvbQnOqPDXbYI=; b=K1U5MI7a3SqFxf7sR6QpJnVhRTUfGrtFCMiO6J678I2sVscQGtZs+eC4UnvLgAGajL LODG8vwb37NyhXbZCz/xAelrN3WEO88TCWgruN8ob1JpTsFkMprNIao5WAQ3p8Powv73 DBevINa/bYiRhNxe5nEFpGA3negKaEWV+LHWSShljbyqhRPsIl+D9R8SRgWVOPUffpx5 LBOUr+gmaJsO0RfXpYNTndythCzo2q6cNKgZqX+pv8zOP6Xzcb2S1Z1BPKwRuTXmxYPi PRVnRcyxBDe3BYg8FPX32gvtl7md+riMbbzxTotbSgnP4B1pTSCenTW6//GtjtJNPFBB 9FAA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.99.197 with SMTP id es5mr11804876lbb.30.1360176468040; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.6.70 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:47:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
References: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:47:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABzCy2BjRfCFum7fiALTkTMN2aHA3Enq6CNKn8BnsH4XQh28Ug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04017271359e8204d512c393
Cc: jose@ietf.org
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 18:47:50 -0000

FIRST POLL:  NO
SECOND POLL:  YES
THIRD POLL:  A

2013/2/4 Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>

> 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<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en