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

Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <breno@google.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 75A8321F8569 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:24:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 o4kCnzt7XjLN for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:24:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com (mail-ob0-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40A121F854A for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ef5so1725202obb.11 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:24:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=//x5M8ifYT0ws2lByD1ccw5+mn22A53IhRCm9lT36D8=; b=UGCQlc2zbZyrMgu4RAyRNMdkhdm1cP6tZ0LjnWiW3SrW3Ve3fUK2ymnsPOLqpf4NrG 2ziAEFtlqXCBgGDqev9PtWt3dpbCuy1sqjS+zsYV1/9rVUfUD5RF5fhIzaaqJm6HcJ+Q pWByohG9nXPAlWXTS4KqYE4nvgfSvKuZlb+HxWrClwTjdROhB/ZFlLus6fMos22YpAp7 Im4yapO7bYe1EYNFk8CkrOPi6+4gGA+AXPNhg8zfSLM1oK1kXwN4L7b8HnrHyqb8VeRj BLkaGQ4+NuF5Ch9crfXv87/lj0ioSgu/bmegTbYVQnl/z+Z5w3hREF7ykf8y55CsqBJB ba5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=//x5M8ifYT0ws2lByD1ccw5+mn22A53IhRCm9lT36D8=; b=bKuOAdUt2rui5RND9iRUhoGe8IEhW/LmVn/lrYcNoZ1K/68tBJPk/NgPEIEXmgiaFR IVBjMzxJ5xjFbs+2jAcnFSwVJiyQtyXSaY2qMXFyDE7UPIDgcnWgGIb+mqjNh+Fp8IV5 B5AwsPsvr/0GXXkg6yILFwrQR63h33BvWIi/ny8Joc52hO6GpgaaZUzm+OoB4uyIduLU nKraOHSbBsBaq3OhjC03An1NPZWZo946rlNM9K/I8xmyAsp+MW4xBT1w2HnpNLGgMYcg DpXRVphcu4j6QTXb3wWhypIbbnJY+1cOkmP/lH+UKQeEsFHhlYFFCcMxbk2cfUmxorrm b+5w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.21.135 with SMTP id v7mr21977025obe.101.1360171450016; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.75.69 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:24:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAJ++qE=nA_gxJGjYaaSXeja0xum2_qAswncLSdUY5i0zDnbfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org> <77177F76-6BC1-467A-8771-F2E1B7AEC7B4@gmail.com> <CAAJ++qE=nA_gxJGjYaaSXeja0xum2_qAswncLSdUY5i0zDnbfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:24:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAJ++qFV=kiYPuuu5a0Lu9yR47gE=VzQAwtbQD8nBxDHsf7p6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/JqMVfaumwi24Dqp9i0HeeksZbGRJmv33LWfg5dFJVDNcbo++6sDTZZo9VTHrjimQUyJ3Uz0M/yAYbUbvlauGkodppNRhBArKTr8YiQ9LhwuCkC51fUkxAs5MnMNNJ4XK+01nkwTgXCpIw0iujHpb+13ONY5W6+ZuYxDFw7F6RaWbB9SGcoS43AZI9udz/I7OcD2k
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>, odonoghue@isoc.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 17:24:15 -0000

Clarification:

I only support THIRD POLL: B if the new header can be omitted, so that
3-component JWTs are still valid. I don't support this option if
backwards-incompatible.

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com> wrote:
> FIRST POLL: Yes
>
> SECOND POLL: YES
>
> THIRD POLL: B
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FIRST POLL: Yes
>>
>> SECOND POLL: YES
>>
>> THIRD POLL: B
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2013, at 6:48 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jose mailing list
>> jose@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
> --
> --Breno



-- 
--Breno