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

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

4 feb 2013 kl. 15:48 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org>:

> 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

-- Roland
------------------------------------------------------
Roland Hedberg
IT Architect/Senior Researcher
ICT Services and System Development (ITS) 
Umeå University 
SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden	
Phone +46 90 786 68 44
Mobile +46 70 696 68 44 
www.its.umu.se