Re: Communicating Warning Information in HTTP APIs

Hi everyone,

first of all, thank you all for your feedback in the past. Since the end of
last year, a lot has happened.

With version 01 of the draft, we've taken a new route, introducing a new
field (Content-Warning) which contains a key to identify that warning
information will be returned in the responses body.

We've released version 02 of the draft yesterday, which now incorporates
most of the feedback we've received. Special thanks go out to Roberto Polli.

Again all feedback is appreciated so we can work on making this happen.

All the best and have a great weekend
André


On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 6:51 AM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Hi André,
>
> My .02 is that Warning's semantics are not consistently used or
> implemented by intermediaries, which makes it less than useful. Its syntax
> is also... not great.
>
> If you have use cases, I'd recommend minting a new header field and
> starting fresh, rather than trying to reuse it.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > On 6 Nov 2019, at 5:58 am, André Cedik <andre.cedik@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > Erik Wilde submitted an I-D on Monday - using the subject of this mail
> as the title (see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cedik-http-warning/) - that he and
> I wrote. It is our goal "to allow HTTP providers to have a standardized way
> of communicating to their consumers that while the response can be
> considered to be a non-failure, there is some warning information available
> that they might want to take into account".
> >
> > Shortly after we submitted the draft Julian Reschke notified us (see
> https://github.com/dret/I-D/issues/125) that the Warning header is bound
> to be removed with the next spec (draft-ietf-httpbis-cache). Which is very
> unfortunate for the I-D since we wanted to use it for indicating that the
> client would find additional information within the response body.
> >
> > Since there is currently no other way of conveying this to an http
> client (that we know of), we'd really like to get feedback if this is a use
> case for which you would be willing to keep the Warning header or if there
> is another way to make something like this possible.
> >
> > Best
> > André Cedik
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>