Hi Joel, > On 2022-06-06, at 19:44, Joel Jaeggli via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli > Review result: Ready > > I reviewed draft-ietf-core-problem-details on behalf of the ops directorate. I > nsummar y this draft is largely ready. I have one perhaps clarifying question. > > in the regards to the following statement: > > Consumers of a Concise Problem Details data item MUST ignore any > Custom Problem Detail entries, or keys inside the Custom Problem > Detail entries, that they do not recognize; this allows Custom > Problem Detail entries to evolve and include additional information > in the future. The assumption is that this is done in a backward and > forward compatible way. > > This seems like less of a gesture at compatibility as opposed to simply > ignoring conditions that would otherwise produce errors by the receiving > parties. it would see likely that coap problem detail collectors may collect > such data for processing by other systems since the whole collection pipline > may not move in lock step or doesn't it? Indeed, the text only describes that an unrecognized entry should not cause an error in a “Consumer”, not how to deal with it in further processing/forwarding. I have attempted to clarify (and refactor) this in https://github.com/core-wg/core-problem-details/pull/27 I think the SHOULD (RECOMMENDED) is justified because of systems/protocols that have their own problem details formats. Grüße, Carsten -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
