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

["Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike, 

whatever story the group comes up with I believe it would be important to describe this in the document since other specifications have followed a different approach. 

Knowing you guys I had already expected that you try to solve this extensibility issue using additional OpenID Connect specifications. 

I am wondering what approach other specifications have used in the past. My understanding is that XML, CMS, and PSKC follow a model where the mandatory to implement functionality is defined in the specification and additional specifications indicate what additional extensions have to be used. Is my understanding correct? 

Ciao
Hannes

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 07:20:32 +0000
> Von: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
> An: Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>et>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Betreff: RE: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality

> Hi Hannes,
> 
> One tried-and-true method of enabling extensions is through discovery
> and/or negotiation.  (This fits into your (b) - there is another higher layer
> specification that says what is required.)  For instance, if two parties
> come to understand through discovery that both support an extension, then they
> are free to use it between themselves.
> 
> For instance, yes, in OpenID Connect, implementations can discover what
> algorithms and other features are supported and then use only those that are
> implemented by both communicating parties.  I can't imagine that this is
> the only JOSE use case that will employ discovery and/or negotiation.
> 
> When discovery and/or negotiation is used, implementations don't have to
> ignore not-understood features, because none would be used in the first
> place.
> 
> 				Best wishes,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> P.S.  Yes, you're right that (a) - out-of-band agreement - could be used
> in some cases too.  For instance, OAuth deployments almost all employ
> out-of-band agreements.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:32 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality
> 
> Hi Karen,
> 
> thanks for running this poll.
> 
> My problem with answering your questions is the following:
> 
> The question you are raising deals with how you want to handle extensions.
> While it is easy to say that all the features in specification X must be
> implemented it is not even clear which specifications you are actually
> referring to with question #1.
> 
> So, I am wondering how you plan to handle any extension when someone
> answers question #1 with YES. I see only the following ways:
> 
> a) there is an out-of-band agreement (for a specific system, such a
> federation) that defines what values need to be present, or
> 
> b) there is another higher layer specification that says what is required.
> 
> I assume that many of the OAuth folks have answered the question with YES
> since they are thinking that they will just write that specification as
> part of OpenID Connect.
> 
> If that's the plan I think it should be clearly articulated to avoid
> raising wrong expectations of the level of interoperability this work provides.
> 
> If there is a different plan then please let me know.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> On 02/04/2013 04:48 PM, Karen O'Donoghue 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose