FIRST POLL: YES SECOND POLL: YES THIRD POLL: A -- -- Casper
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 08:04 +0100, Roland Hedberg wrote: > FIRST POLL: YES > SECOND POLL: YES > THIRD POLL: A > > 4 feb 2013 kl. 15:48 skrev Karen O'Donoghue <[email protected]>: > > > 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 > > -- 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 > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
