FIRST POLL: YES SECOND POLL: YES THIRD POLL: A -- HAYASHI, Tatsuya Lepidum Co. Ltd.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:48 PM, 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 -- HAYASHI, Tatsuya Lepidum Co. Ltd. On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:48 PM, 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 -- HAYASHI, Tatsuya Lepidum Co. Ltd. _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
