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

[Casper Biering <[e-mail]>]

FIRST POLL:  YES
SECOND POLL:  YES
THIRD POLL:  A

-- 
-- Casper


On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 08:04 +0100, Roland Hedberg wrote:
> FIRST POLL:  YES
> SECOND POLL:  YES
> THIRD POLL:  A
> 
> 4 feb 2013 kl. 15:48 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>rg>:
> 
> > 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> 
> -- Roland
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Hedberg
> IT Architect/Senior Researcher
> ICT Services and System Development (ITS) 
> Umeå University 
> SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden	
> Phone [phone]
> Mobile [phone] 
> www.its.umu.se 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose