Subject: [apps-discuss] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-appsawg-http-problem-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:08:29 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-http-problem-02: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-http-problem/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4 talks about how a problem type SHOULD resolve to HTML
documentation. Is there ever a case where an API might be standardized to
be used by multiple origin servers? Would each server host it's own
documentation? Would the problem type be a relative URL under those
circumstances? (You say it can be relative, but all the examples are
fully qualified)

- 4, 2nd paragraph: "New problem types need to carefully
   consider..."
This is a pedantic nit, really a personal pet peeve: Designers of new
problem types should consider this. I doubt the types themselves will :-)

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:17:02 +1100

Hi Ben,

On 17 Dec 2015, at 9:08 am, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> be used by multiple origin servers?

Yes.

> Would each server host it's own
> documentation?

Possibly.

> Would the problem type be a relative URL under those

It could be; see the last para of 3.1.

> problem types should consider this. I doubt the types themselves will :-)

Ack - see:
  https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commit/848c2f4c8

Thanks,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/