Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote:
    >> Adam Roach:    
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/6AAD9mwsKEsbIUmXRVOAV0N83yA
    >> ...
    >> This is an rfcdiff from the already-wrapped JSON to the proposed -23 that
    >> includes all the changes from the various DISCUSSes up to now:
    >> https://tinyurl.com/y2qhjwh8


    > As a quick note -- the diff above does not address the "discuss" part of 
my
    > second discuss point: the document remains ambiguous regarding *how* the 
URL
    > is to be returned. The lengthy parenthetical references added to the
    > corresponding paragraph aren't sufficient to positively indicate that the 
URL
    > appears in a "Location" header: this needs to be stated explicitly rather
    > than implied by a section reference.

I had previously updated to point to RFC7231 section 6.3.2, but upon careful
reading, I see that returning the URL in the Location: is not mandated by
6.3.2.  I am a little bit surprised that 7231 is so vague on what I thought
was a pretty much written in stone process....

         <t>
           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")
-          response (<xref target="RFC7231" /> sections 6.3.2 and 7.1) 
containing
-          a URL to the prepared (and idempotent, therefore cachable) audit 
response.
+          response (<xref target="RFC7231" /> sections 6.3.2 and 7.1), with
+          the URL to the prepared (and idempotent, therefore cachable) audit
+          response in the Location: header.
         </t>

Does this fix things for you?




-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to