From nobody Thu Jan 28 00:29:04 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: httpapi@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: httpapi@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6A63A13E8 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:29:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=KZd9pqxV; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=HUYEbbi7 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7nHlO96OZeDX for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C95A3A13E3 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25826B7F; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:29:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=K qs20OhCZ5InPxAWqjf8ELF8yq69jiixI8lQQ9Fq+4o=; b=KZd9pqxVyImXlhbp9 AOddm6yOKvm4feFH3DMA7j4NElsFQrU9NxEXUFvXzFS7UPsBXHUvR7cF5ZLutH20 DZA9ZKcCArGPN9ydX6aOjOOSMkSTMh3eFni0aXa0G68tIdjyFRL9agZ6PwZPF0qo VFX1adK4tRdV2W2Tt48zXXWZrT11X1m1hhlR7I8p/vS+nl7n2wPAirviJkHIR74w 4YaAZix3ulPKMxzU8JY9Vc2FCCKqzEK5wRR9g8zs/VrnsumxRziblRfuPOSM2ZQt Dkj6anHeGqtc7TlRfjN+05n/RrhHjzE30HhWl7R1aWBqliBNvS5/ojWPt7EMktAH YnsZg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Kqs20OhCZ5InPxAWqjf8ELF8yq69jiixI8lQQ9Fq+ 4o=; b=HUYEbbi7llJ+Ww437DFhG6B++Dsu6+LpeJDxIkhYTGW9oN3b8SBa9VO2w iVlOgc5h2Pm+uP6QWY0CyX0fhRykzx/qoBQvC+W4UanZwx62/Iix9SMjnjlJ7X/H dW9Zz4KgqFt/OuuBlxWzk6uLLzlXLgvX9KgW/SOOLGdGhlX+ImZ08wtgPCK/EOjX RzXvvHwOQUQdMF6Pl3AcJnE2sbwu9aee7aAdJNX7B4918rJxOwIEamkTjrqLUeam YXRxOkTbsbu/35vv40kWt90tN5NYs9jo5lXw99oSTRLAxA3igkurqa8H0FwLDob2 9rDXfAOlnbrSfsb71Y/9QEtYL+0sQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdelgdduudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeetfeelffejfffhheehfeefgedulefgueejudekieegvdeghefffedvheffieel keenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrddujedrudehkedrvd ehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehm nhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 821B224005C; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:28:56 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 19:28:53 +1100 Cc: "Salz, Rich" , "httpapi@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <88ED49DB-E081-4C97-9FB9-080A1C585435@akamai.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Cedik?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [httpapi] Discussion of adopting Content-Warning header X-BeenThere: httpapi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Building Blocks for HTTP APIs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:29:03 -0000 Hi Andr=C3=A9, > On 28 Jan 2021, at 7:21 pm, Andr=C3=A9 Cedik = wrote: >=20 > The challenge with warnings from my point of view is the fact that the = original request was successful - in our case, a shipping label has been = created - but there were "side effects" that may need to be addressed. = If it would only boil down to this I'd say "let's create a content-type = application/warnings+json" or something similar. But I would make the = assumption that there are use cases where warnings and errors can both = happen with one request. Maybe because something happened at an = intermediary and the destination server which is processing the request = is throwing e.g. a server error. This is one of the reasons why we opted = to make it a header field. The other being that there might be other use = cases where an "embedded-warning" doesn't make sense. This is why the = concept of a registry was introduced to create other warning types. I'm not sure that assumption holds. There may indeed be other use cases = for warnings in APIs that justify a header, but without seeing them, = it's hard to tell if the design you've proposed will address them. Your = use case can be addressed by using RFC7807, so why not just use that? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/