Subject: [core] FETCH errors

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:58:25 +0200

Prompted by Alexey's AD review, I wrote more detailed text for the
errors that can be encountered by FETCH requests, analogous to the
existing text for PATCH/iPATCH*).  As the FETCH/PATCH document is on the
agenda for Thursday's IESG meeting, some quick feedback on the list
would be appreciated.

Convenient links for reviewing:

https://core-wg.github.io/etch/#rfc.section.2.2

and (for a complete diff)

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-core-etch&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/core-wg/etch/gh-pages/draft-ietf-core-etch-latest.txt

Grüße, Carsten

*) Normally, I'd have factored out common text between the two sections.
 But let's talk about the new section's content first, which is easiest
without the indirection.

---

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:33:19 +0200

Hi Carsten,

The following conditions also apply to FETCH in my opinion.

Resource not found: requesting (parts of) resources that do not exist.
Failed precondition: idem to PATCH

the other errors are more resource writing specific,seems to me.

Proposal:
Generate a section 4, all other sections x become x+1 for x>3
In the section
4.1: FETCH, PATCH, IPATCH errors.
4.2 : PATCH iPATCH errors. (as above)

Greetings,

Peter

Carsten Bormann schreef op 2016-10-10 12:58:
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:22:41 +0200

Hi Peter,

I didn't list those error conditions because the text focuses on new
errors that don't apply to GET ("Beyond the conditions already defined
in [RFC7252] for GET, noteworthy ones are:...").

(On the editorial point: I don't think we want to actually factor out
the error conditions into a separate section; it is probably more useful
to just incrementally list the new ones for PATCH.  But, again, let's
focus on the content, first.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:40:25 +0200

Hi Carsten,

s /noteworthy ones are/ conditions associated with the FETCH request 
payload are/

might be clearer.

Peter