Open janpmeyer opened 1 year ago
Thanks @janpmeyer for raising this topic, we have discussed it in our working group call today. We agree that 204 is better and will change the document accordingly soon.
We just need to figure out if the descriptions in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#name-204-no-content conflict with the intended state transitions.
It's a little bit late to introduce such changes (our fault), however, I have prepared an PR for it to speed up the discussion.
Any reason why a response body (and thereby 200) would be required? If not, a 204 certainly reduces confusion.
In the specification for the HTTP-Bindings of the Contract Negotiation and TransferProcess exists some endpoints with no specified response body. (Endpoints are listed at the bottom, Contract Negotiation, Transfer Process) A clean solution is to introduce an empty response body and change the expected status code from 200 to 204.
Contract Negotiation Provider: negotiations/:id/request negotiations/:id/events negotiations/:id/agreement/verification negotiations/:id/termination
Contract Negotiation Consumer: negotiations/:id/offers negotiations/:id/agreement negotiations/:id/events
Transfer Process: transfers/:id/start transfers/:id/completion transfers/:id/termination transfers/:id/suspension