That is an interesting idea. Obtaining a “renewed” voucher would be as simple as a query to the known URL (unless the nonce needed to be updated in which case use the POST method). Hmm.
Feels a little bit like a premature optimization; but I see the point. - max > On Jun 5, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Max Pritikin (pritikin) <[email protected]> wrote: >> From https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-9.5 > >> The action performed by the POST method might not result in a >> resource that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 200 >> (OK) or 204 (No Content) is the appropriate response status, >> depending on whether or not the response includes an entity that >> describes the result. > >> In this case I think the 200 OK code is most appropriate since the >> server generates a signed voucher as a result of the POST and returns >> it. The voucher is not identified by a URI. > > Agreed... let me ask the question again: > SHOULD the voucher be identified by a URI? > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
