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

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.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 C02E521F871D for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:46:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.666, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 n07CHZCPP9lf for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:46:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F079D21F86EB for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:46:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com ([209.85.219.71]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob111.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKURKk7b63ZSbVd3KPnkOTFmyXhJUhrXpU@postini.com; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:46:06 PST
Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id o6so8250102oag.10 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:46:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=oP5nNiZg3oH0Ud52QvEGjk3zvRvJdRGBiLKPwAWfSC8=; b=HF3ArjZjjE6ve3iZAEB3G0vbSw+Y2TIPWeRY6I/msGhYC3nKFTdrgKV5S6hr25m7w0 YqKHk+Cw80Jfk9iSGOWmbh+aNWMoYggPazbZECRSazD2jdo2Nuf2L7swI8o0BwDhxYYf 3NqiAkAkYKhvp3xK2VO6KviR1aoKJ+sn/ElQpxmedG78yhKAR3pLn+BdU2eJ7WYc6lR3 DdMSb4qTYgdvwTk2nBFKoF9DhmldkXTTsEFwmV/0dM0rupxUL+zHNSgKWM9OPzSFry1U Ml8msrTRrLDBl3ymoJZWtu6xQEDG8biaOkXwRpAnQngv5DNIARz8sfeZ3oVTE1CotuCY xfgg==
X-Received: by 10.50.169.106 with SMTP id ad10mr8325976igc.88.1360176364639; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:46:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.50.169.106 with SMTP id ad10mr8325915igc.88.1360176364038; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:46:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.139.8 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:45:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
References: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:45:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCTiHZCimTtoe6Zcm9Tay=-knT21SmL2UExYiwe1yPhUGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen ODonoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f2346bb02a92504d512bd2a
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmESHP5XCv9xpjkGdo+kQdn/3yqilejPqipeu732dheXOIYprASWwsdXrxlgJDJFh2NHGTmlSxGVQwlLMCkaw4NI/iaqgRHmOkw7gtWeXvRD/iFLxgFu3mU1A8I2EBj75UWnoj0
Cc: "jose@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:46:07 -0000

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>
>