Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality
hideki nara <hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp> Thu, 07 February 2013 02:07 UTC
Return-Path: <hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp>
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 39DB021F8511 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:07:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 2ZYKUeo2l8Pt for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:07:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2775D21F8523 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 10so2883288ied.30 for <jose@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:07:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=DhmAlI7C8KNlJ1xWbd15jjiK72GZZL8Pf0nM+lQzKTg=; b=OBBwoVRsekoaZnutdb0R6NbGH0lufwDKIUj8grP+wQa3w9cpLiogHnjDNYdknJPP55 qzazrDV3cdXD/9hvF7M2f8/FM+/qcPSsViZVk0vNp75Sz1HnzwzwndXLkzOLQScWqiDc PItjWVqNBzN99vbfDVvLURkRaxVMnEGRg9p5xc7zY3AZhsIO2Y2CtnvG7MJyjsx5/YJs 128nY9fTffdYtYOqLn4O6f2MPvh1Zyw3ge950ev1YNkYZBxVaaIMPZJ+KrkT6H0eHMdr vARa51ID6W0ez5NkqPQxsYOcr5CmSePGYFgLZuQHLIceo/xlKn5i+PUNK7x5sAE3zHxj ZFXw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.91.168 with SMTP id cf8mr11014566igb.20.1360202874511; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.31.66 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:07:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
References: <510FCA42.5000704@isoc.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:07:54 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAAkSUFNO_1o0orUgfwvE3AjruNQcrz5Z5a5Z_vg6z6ycC3f3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: hideki nara <hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp>
To: odonoghue@isoc.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlXTZIvpnUaI4DOA6b08qTEL3gwr38HY9e6V+LPmfb6mMoccrfqu+lF6VSlqcPv3AlTs58f
Cc: 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: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:07:58 -0000
FIRST POLL: YES SECOND POLL: YES THIRD POLL: A --- hideki nara 2013/2/4 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
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Edmund Jay
- [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Karen O'Donoghue
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality John Bradley
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Dick Hardt
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Breno de Medeiros
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Breno de Medeiros
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality George Fletcher
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Dick Hardt
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality sebastien.brault
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Brian Campbell
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Nat Sakimura
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Eric Rescorla
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Peter Yee
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality hideki nara
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Ryo Ito
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Roland Hedberg
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality charles.marais@orange.com
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Casper Biering
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Manger, James H
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Dirkjan Ochtman
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality nov matake
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Andreas Åkre Solberg
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Prateek Mishra
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Salvatore D'Agostino
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Russ Housley
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] POLL(s): header criticality HAYASHI, Tatsuya