On 8/13/19 10:37 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Adam Roach <[email protected]> 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?
Yes, thanks. One minor nit: "...Location: header field." /a _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
