FIRST POLL: Yes SECOND POLL: YES
THIRD POLL: B On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > FIRST POLL: Yes > > SECOND POLL: YES > > THIRD POLL: B > > On Feb 4, 2013, at 6:48 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose -- --Breno _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
