Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > In the weekly BRSKI calls we did discuss on and off the issue of > limited HTTP error codes returned when calling BRSKI endpoint > URIs. Especially the point that it's difficult to map all error > conditions to unique HTTP status codes.
> So, i would hereby like to suggest that we revisit error codes returned
> by new BRSKI work to follow what the IETF has specified and follow what
> seems to be like a very simple way to apply that method, as found in
> ACME (which is kinda related to our BRSKI work).
Seems like it should be a new document that updates RFC8995?
i.e. I don't think we have many dependancies.
> Whenever an initiator should or could have two different reactions to
> two different errors, such as different retries, then there MUST be two
> different ErrorNameNNN. Aka: automated reactions must be possible by
> only examining the ErrorNameNNN.
agreed.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
