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

FIRST POLL:  NO
SECOND POLL:  YES
THIRD POLL:  A

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:48 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<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>
>