IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [httpapi] RFC for HTTP API error responses (was: rfc7807 errata or just "more")

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Sat, 16 January 2021 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
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 6B5A13A17EB for <httpapi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:05:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.25, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 QpByRP35sNJQ for <httpapi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:05:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B7A3A17EA for <httpapi@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 07:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 10GF008l027335; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:51 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=jXHRKw928DPw11CWlciY/a58rUIGyjjXHZDSNXekPPA=; b=MSbUlqvhyEi2GAAG+Ps81fJY85QsEIinceq/dTgYvVMY8teZRETIYbfSGh28GMPTRzpo Q8OOI/qW4nPwqwbq+nTzsO8QkphckD35mN0MUI8cMBzGXDiqFwOpX1m2KytDJmbUv6VF Ju/e3qGFQcOYnCG2RlQnM73m/pTIvIhxvV1345hICtQkwyAXMvoLlgRLkXULInABTiud AHPZpwSnkiN1HcGYOqrKcpJJCsLWWOg1DDtvE0KzFQcTs0X5xPXJmcIbQF4onN6cAI75 wq0/O7RgQAaCD74YxzrdikUBzT6BypeSgcs62kl8nb5AbnKDTjzhT0ibneUXDFic9T9w eA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint6 (prod-mail-ppoint6.akamai.com [184.51.33.61] (may be forged)) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 363sefa0q1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:51 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint6.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint6.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 10GEn6KZ010603; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:04:50 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint6.akamai.com with ESMTP id 363vc2rmuf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:04:50 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:04:50 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:04:49 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Ben Bucksch <news@bucksch.org>, "httpapi@ietf.org" <httpapi@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [httpapi] RFC for HTTP API error responses (was: rfc7807 errata or just "more")
Thread-Index: AQHW671D4F+LuCjINEiVS2F0chyIdqoqWmGA
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:04:49 +0000
Message-ID: <942EFCF2-AF6C-4364-B4E9-2466B9A8D0AC@akamai.com>
References: <CAC5fHGPAVBKiV81bTGpm3BwwfRT-UZw732okCA7d9TTBBwGvGQ@mail.gmail.com> <5fc6752d-f3d7-0781-6e3a-1fd99f74a9ad@beonex.com>
In-Reply-To: <5fc6752d-f3d7-0781-6e3a-1fd99f74a9ad@beonex.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.45.21011103
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_942EFCF2AF6C4364B4E92466B9A8D0ACakamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2021-01-16_07:2021-01-15, 2021-01-16 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=993 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101160094
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2021-01-16_07:2021-01-15, 2021-01-16 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=886 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101160096
X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.61) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint6
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/httpapi/u_NMoN786mGH2QgBzKKYUinfeG4>
Subject: Re: [httpapi] RFC for HTTP API error responses (was: rfc7807 errata or just "more")
X-BeenThere: httpapi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Building Blocks for HTTP APIs <httpapi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/httpapi>, <mailto:httpapi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/httpapi/>
List-Post: <mailto:httpapi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpapi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpapi>, <mailto:httpapi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:05:04 -0000

  *   I would like to ask you, esp. the leaders of the WG: Would you be willing to discuss and adopt such a new RFC? It would probably include RFC 7807, but significantly extend it in its scope.

It’s up to the members of the WG to decide if they want to work on this, and it’s up to the WG chairs (working with our Area Director) to work on modifying the charter, if necessary, or pointing to another WG.  In this particular case, since 7807 was done in the now-closed “appsaws” group (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/charter/) it seems appropriate to discuss it here.  If the WG decides to take this work on, then we’ll make sure the  charter covers it.

So, chat away.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email