Communicating Warning Information in HTTP APIs

André Cedik <andre.cedik@googlemail.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FD012002E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:21:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=googlemail.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 68anzlRgiKgJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (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 20729120828 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1iSBqF-0005xX-AB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:18:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:18:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1iSBqF-0005xX-AB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from uranus.w3.org ([128.30.52.58]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <andre.cedik@googlemail.com>) id 1iSBqC-0005wF-Gx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:18:40 +0000
Received: from www-data by uranus.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <andre.cedik@googlemail.com>) id 1iSBqC-0007WM-Bo for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:18:40 +0000
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <andre.cedik@googlemail.com>) id 1iS42X-0002vN-Au for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:58:53 +0000
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <andre.cedik@googlemail.com>) id 1iS42T-0001LT-Ep for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:58:53 +0000
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id a11so22725048wra.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:58:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Aa+rv3MrKLPoGx4T9r3CdyBhFD+P7K7/CrAMEFcLZT4=; b=Uzvs/kVMvRYZvo4yOXoeVuMz+8NJyVO98F16O5c/sTjynLxubZfVImFI41hW5W+Dm8 gKhxEfQ7uYlpiMkPUIWXpgWWlO0o7UqetoW8uJCFx+9GwCLtE2ayhjXoVKlpZcRClfYG 0QoVKfhJFsJQIKRLW0c2zRQWaAEj+2QdghIIxVjdDDajxYSrmCjz/twumcnUROsPxdMd rNyVL5yqmLIQtlGII//Oz/B03jgy5mo8cz8ljY5VhBLLBIbx3mDKfb5H5OSYCQ4hVqeO 7nQiOpRu1QPnNVVrPHl0kCsbmTy+QAUJciQ9rh44Mev0K0Pvq/DbwPMYyizKn11aXf1e uf+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Aa+rv3MrKLPoGx4T9r3CdyBhFD+P7K7/CrAMEFcLZT4=; b=PY9dFBC5XvMXEpw/zGu27ReBgl+PmIM98UtYhIBGmwx38HBnchLcKkEE1thHiMgKNW Qd1N+HaTPi4ii4h8yW55oKrheR308MS2jSBjvgPR7PZtNqCiKI6RZVRtxcCAcTX9hroe td6hIA7KfxFO3+5utqz+OgQYe8qWeJDLMKRECDoRt7rciXAzOfLKa0EGXm7IlwRT77hz 7IwepJMlUCnEob8RrXF6z5dhJ0H4i1oTfAt9sZvfLFIkH2vY96uXnCmjlL7QcVt5XaxM 7gdzgs5N5ehC/XionsNd0Vo+r0AW11Sklhwda6J/sInQcy7cEazDyRj3z3/P0wA0VdpU li9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU57qsZYEXTA9rCdoe50q7iywZG/3NowZcTGW6ii4UHSaxi8pGc PMaKCBBSw1Cf7fseeG86iOgfdrIS5IBsxTYkSr73zWcXkQI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwTRVXMZpg2KzMlRmRSbdyH0KI2eEJrsaGQz6uqe2SoQczrg5VvoChr39dYa4Wk2oQ50NJi8OJPMeaEKwHmiJA=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:44c8:: with SMTP id z8mr29050044wrr.66.1572980327514; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:58:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: André Cedik <andre.cedik@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 19:58:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEQcYZgHNcOv5tMv+E4oRJs8rpSugEPcT=NaZAM53v=0nkotcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a906a905969e05c7"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42f; envelope-from=andre.cedik@googlemail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42f.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1iS42T-0001LT-Ep 00e3dfc378ca57a72601082e295c186b
X-caa-id: 41df9b5a41
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Communicating Warning Information in HTTP APIs
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAEQcYZgHNcOv5tMv+E4oRJs8rpSugEPcT=NaZAM53v=0nkotcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37125
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hey everyone,

Erik Wilde submitted an I-D on Monday - using the subject of this mail as
the title (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cedik-http-warning/)
- that he and I wrote. It is our goal "to allow HTTP providers to have a
standardized way of communicating to their consumers that while the
response can be considered to be a non-failure, there is some warning
information available that they might want to take into account".

Shortly after we submitted the draft Julian Reschke notified us (see
https://github.com/dret/I-D/issues/125) that the Warning header is bound to
be removed with the next spec (draft-ietf-httpbis-cache). Which is very
unfortunate for the I-D since we wanted to use it for indicating that the
client would find additional information within the response body.

Since there is currently no other way of conveying this to an http client
(that we know of), we'd really like to get feedback if this is a use case
for which you would be willing to keep the Warning header or if there is
another way to make something like this possible.

Best
André Cedik