Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality
Ryo Ito <ritou.06@gmail.com> Thu, 07 February 2013 02:44 UTC
Return-Path: <ritou.06@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 656BF21E8034 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:44:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 WaqVvYZWMQio for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (mail-vc0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3021F0D04 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id fw7so1333855vcb.6 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:44:19 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VKR3Vd1UypAOKjUMo8km9WwmIkegtrMECe+cEKLm9iI=; b=ELkc57RrBrKU5hoqnyvTjfgbPghwPuJbL+tvXOP1U5V+WjXdc3KsJgD4pA2GYev/SO pqafVkDZ2EGu+F1OiKCkTwoItF1PVxcsy/qPxMqukeQxZ55weJv3hPCuOo7pXXtgR0RL vgRAXYSkp0xVbFTZyOphlQuvHV6fTa0aofwuJYX0Onxj+mBmfhETg48DSNVugwBDxiQp a9+46qhOTD7/COSsi8ryATFhOYEL3i/hFKG+pjLFbvvhnE+P75/BjCstJ0wTJhH9Mjnr Mo+0kX55iHsVAu74gbzzc7QQLUbXNbqoYCTtW2Zws8KwQRB4qSn+MfiNZW399nQDh472 7F0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.67.133 with SMTP id n5mr31239898vdt.24.1360205059154; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.69.51 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:44:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
References: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:44:19 +0900
Message-ID: <CANyUTbFL7KgfU4Lbbn24E4bqek_E4bF65Gg8bKPPXhrSym8S5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryo Ito <ritou.06@gmail.com>
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:44:20 -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 -- ==================== Ryo Ito Email : ritou.06@gmail.com ====================
- 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