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?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
