search

ietf-wg-httpapi / rfc7807bis

Revision of RFC7807: HTTP Problem Details
Other
20 stars 8 forks source link

Propose IANA registry #24

Closed mnot closed 3 years ago

mnot commented 3 years ago

Note that the recommendation regarding a URI prefix for registered values is subject to other discussions.

Fixes #7.

dret commented 3 years ago

On 2021-07-16 15:12, Sanjay Dalal wrote:

In addition to the about:blank, should we also define the problem types for the most common errors in http apis with this document itself? 400, 401, 403, 404, 500, ? These would provide good examples and also once the document is approved, these would be right away useful to API developers without waiting for them being registered and approved separately.

my reading of RFC 7807 is that the vanilla status codes do not need types and this is where about:blank is explicitly recommended (if somebody does not want to simply omit the type URI, which also is allowed). i think this is how the RFC does it and i don't think we even have the option to change this and to now recommend specific type URIs for vanilla problem reports.