Re: [jose] Proposed Text - MUST understand

["Jim Schaad" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, I was missing a clause in the text

IETF applications that use the JOSE work MUST

I was trying to say that IETF documents using JOSE must do this, however we
cannot really impose it on non IETF documents.

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:18 PM
> To: Jim Schaad
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [jose] Proposed Text - MUST understand
> 
> How is an IETF application different than any other application?
> 
> The Datatracker, rfcdiff, and xml2rfc will probably never need to use
jose, so
> I know that is not the intended meaning.  ;-)
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
> 
> > I am going to venture some proposed text to try and advance the
> > discussion about the MUST understand all fields in the current
> > document.  I acknowledge that the text is written from the point of
> > view that I espouse, however I think that perhaps it does give a
> > sufficient amount of credence to the point of view of other that it
> > might provide a good starting point for discussions.
> >
> > This text is written standalone and as such I have not yet tried to
> > incorporate it into the different documents and in the different
locations.
> > It is possible that the text will need to be somewhat repurposed when
> > it appears in each of the different documents.
> >
> >
> **********************************************************
> ***
> >
> > Applications which use this specification SHOULD ensure that all of
> > the fields in the header are used in either in making the trust
> > decision or determining how to use the content.  IETF applications
> > MUST have  default position of requiring that all fields in the header
> > are known to and used by the application.  IETF applications which
> > allow for fields in the header to be ignored MUST include a
> > justification of why this decision was made and looking at the security
> trade-offs of the decision.
> >
> > The reason why the default position is that applications need to
> > understand and process all of the headers can be seen in the following
> > example.  <Jones et al provide a non-trivial example that demonstrates
> > the security problem associated with ignoring header fields.>
> >
> >
> **********************************************************
> ********