<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
Adam Roach via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> ยง5.8:
>> 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")
>> RESTful response ([RFC7231] section 7.1) containing a URL to the
>> prepared (and easily cachable) audit response.
> The DISCUSS portion of my comment on this text is that it is unclear
about how
> the URL is to be returned. It can just as easily be interpreted as
returning
> it in a "Location" header field as it could as returning it in the
response
> body -- or maybe somewhere else entirely (e.g., a link relation). This
> ambiguity will cause an interop issue. Please be explicit about precisely
how
> the value is conveyed.
I see how this could be confusing.
> While not part of the DISCUSS, I also have a fairly serious comment on the
> phrasing and citation of "return a 201 ("Created") RESTful response
> ([RFC7231] section 7.1)". Section 7.1 points to the top-level discussion
of
> Control Data header fields, rather than any general discussion of RESTful
> responses. It's worth noting that the term "RESTful" never appears in RFC
> 7231, so it's really unclear what section this was attempting to target.
> Perhaps 6.3.2?
Yes, that's what we are trying to target.
I guess we also latched onto section 7.1.2 ("Location")
Can you point me to another document that tries to specify the same thing.
If we shouldn't say we are trying to be RESTful, what should we say?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
