Re: http: Diagnostic instead of reason codes Q

On 06.09.2023 19:28, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks, Lucas!
> Of course, a minute after i wrote my original mail, i did stumble across
> rfc9457, even though i spent hours searching in before *sigh*. It's almost as if
> there's a need to first write some clueless email before searches will make me find stuff.
> (it's a conspiracy ;-).
> But  9205 is a good additional read for me. Hadn't stumbled across that one.
> Now of course, when going to promote 9457, it starts to become real work to
> build out good error diagnostics. Cynical as i am, if i would be cloning
> what i am seeing in other parts of the industry, the responses would be something like:
> HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> Content-Type: application/problem+json
> Content-Language: en
> {
>   "type": "urn:ietf:params:<protocol>:error:CrypticVendorError",
>   "detail": "WorstSoftwareEver, v0.01xy, code: 0x47110815",
> }
> Which unfortunately is still better than not having an error code at all, but it's
> the "call up vendor support, they will let you go through 1 month of hoops for someone
> in L3 support to grep for 0x47110815 in the source code of v0.01xy and then
> try to analyze what that error means".
> But of course, any better definition of error codes is real standards work ;-))
> Only few protocols from IETF seem to ahve done this. Luckily there are some, ACME looks nice
> for example.
> Cheers
>      Toerless

The WebDAV RFCs use an XML payload to send information about failed
preconditions/postconditions. You may want to study those (for instance,
RFC 3253).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2023 17:55:09 UTC