Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 8/13/19 10:37 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      >> Adam Roach:    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/6AAD9mwsKEsbIUmXRVOAV0N83yA
>      >> ...
>      >> This is an rfcdiff from the already-wrapped JSON to the proposed -23 that
>      >> includes all the changes from the various DISCUSSes up to now:
>      >> https://tinyurl.com/y2qhjwh8
>
>
>      > As a quick note -- the diff above does not address the "discuss" part of my
>      > second discuss point: the document remains ambiguous regarding *how* the URL
>      > is to be returned. The lengthy parenthetical references added to the
>      > corresponding paragraph aren't sufficient to positively indicate that the URL
>      > appears in a "Location" header: this needs to be stated explicitly rather
>      > than implied by a section reference.
>
> I had previously updated to point to RFC7231 section 6.3.2, but upon careful
> reading, I see that returning the URL in the Location: is not mandated by
> 6.3.2.  I am a little bit surprised that 7231 is so vague on what I thought
> was a pretty much written in stone process....
>
>           <t>
>             Rather than returning the audit log as a response to the POST (with
>             a return code 200), the MASA MAY instead return a 201 ("Created")
> -          response (<xref target="RFC7231" /> sections 6.3.2 and 7.1) containing
> -          a URL to the prepared (and idempotent, therefore cachable) audit response.
> +          response (<xref target="RFC7231" /> sections 6.3.2 and 7.1), with
> +          the URL to the prepared (and idempotent, therefore cachable) audit
> +          response in the Location: header.
>           </t>
>
> Does this fix things for you?
>
>

Yes, thanks. One minor nit: "...Location: header field."

/a