Subject: [httpapi] RFC7807: a Problem header/trailer field

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:38:43 +1100

After the discussion yesterday, I've done a quick PR:
  https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/rfc7807bis/pull/39

A couple of decision points to note:

	• This mandates that title and detail contain ASCII strings. If
folks feel unicode support is important, that could be done by also
allowing binary, or using some encoding.

	• This requires the problem type to define the SH type of any extensions.
They also could be inferred, I suppose - but if there's any JSON structure,
that'd get tricky.

See also the text in situ:
  https://ietf-wg-httpapi.github.io/rfc7807bis/mnot/35/draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis.html
... and the diff:
  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://ietf-wg-httpapi.github.io/rfc7807bis/draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis.txt&url2=https://ietf-wg-httpapi.github.io/rfc7807bis/mnot/35/draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis.txt

Thoughts?

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