Problem Details for HTTP APIs
draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-07

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-05
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is easy to read for a simple and useful mechanism.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Darrel Miller for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus **and** the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Non 4xx response status code

Can this mechanism also be use in non-error response status codes ? I.e., redirect 3xx, or server error 5xx ? AFAICT, the text is a little unclear.

### Content-Language

The examples use the Content-Language header, but is it mandatory for this mechanism ? I.e., a SHOULD or a MUST would be more explicit.

### No author affiliation

I think that this is the first I-D in my 4 years of IESG that has not a single author affiliation. Just curious about the reasoning.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. I must say the problem details would be equally helpful for human and non-human consumers :-).

I have following comments, where I think it will improve the document if addressed -

  # I was expecting the examples to show one usage of the "status" member.

  # Is there a constrains that the intermediary or caches cannot be consumer of the problem details and must not change the contents of the problem details from origin server? The security considerations and the description of "status" member seems to expect that no one changes the problem details on path and consumer receives that original problem details from the origin server. However, I have not seen such requirement in this specification.

  # This specification needs to refer to RFC7807

  # Section 4.2, says - "When evaluating requests, the Expert(s) should consider community feedback, how well-defined the problem type is, and this specification's requirements."

    Here, the boundary of the community need to be defined specially when the idea is to have designated experts to do the allocation.

    Also it says - "Specification documents should be published in a stable, freely available manner (ideally located with a URL), but need not be standards".

    Here, this "need not be standards" part seems to be unnecessary as Specification required does not need a standard as per RFC8126, Section 4.6. May be just better to remove the whole sentence.

[Ballot comment]
The document is fine. Just one comment.

I am wondering if the document should say something about internationalization, even if it is considered not required as this is more or less a programmatic interface without an enduser at the higher level HTML. But right now, I wonder if there is supposed to be internationalization support, but it just hasn't been pointed out in the document.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-05

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Pete Resnick for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/rwof5ZAvK9MM0IPKUX2lrIFJP8c).

## Comments

### Section 4.2, paragraph 3
```
    When evaluating requests, the Expert(s) should consider community
    feedback, how well-defined the problem type is, and this
    specification's requirements.
```
It's called "expert review" and not "community review" for a reason, because
it's the expert's call. If you want community review, the registration policy
should be "RFC Required" or "IETF Review"...

### Missing references

No reference entries found for: `[RFC3986]`, `[rfc7807]`, and `[RFC7231]`.

### Uncited references

Document obsoletes `RFC7807`, but does not cite it as a reference.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 3
```
-    and deployment-specific values are not registrable.  Specification
+    and deployment-specific values are not registerable.  Specification
+                                                +
```

### Uncited references

Uncited references: `[UTF8]`.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-05
CC @ekline

## Comments

### Appendix A

* I don't know enough about JSON Schema mechanics, but I assume it's probably
  non-trivial (or even impossible) to express that "*[string]" are reserved.

* Don't forget to change the "7807bis" string here once this document has
  an allocated number.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the application types registry of the Media Types registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the existing registrations for:

application/problem+json
application/problem+xml

will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, a new registry is to be created called the HTTP Problem Types registry. The new registry will be located on a new registry page located at:

IANA QUESTION -> Should the registry created by Section 5.2 be placed at a new URL at https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types with the heading "HTTP Problem Types"?

The registration policy for the new registry is Specification Required as defined by RFC 8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Recommended HTTP
Type URI Title Status Code Reference
------------+------------------------+-----------------------+-------------
about:blank See HTTP Status Code N/A [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Field Name: Problem
Template:
Status: Permanent
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-11-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: darrel@tavis.ca, draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis@ietf.org, httpapi-chairs@ietf.org, httpapi@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Problem Details for HTTP APIs) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Building Blocks for HTTP APIs WG
(httpapi) to consider the following document: - 'Problem Details for HTTP
APIs'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-11-03. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a "problem detail" to carry machine-readable
  details of errors in HTTP response content and/or fields to avoid the
  need to define new error response formats for HTTP APIs.

  This document obsoletes RF7807.

Discussion Venues

  This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

  Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
  https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/rfc7807bis.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document achieved broad support across the members of the working group.

> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The most challenging issue has been related to including non-normative content that describes how to use http-problem in JSON-LD format. A few members of the JSON-LD community have asked for this document to identify and effectively reserve a base URI that can be used to uniquely identify the elements of the http-problem model. Reserving a URI space does not seem appropriate for non-normative content, and the WG does not believe it warrants delaying the completion of the document in order to normatively include a JSON-LD variant of the http-problem model.

There was extended discussion over the challenges with the use of relative URI references in "type" property. No resolution could be found that was non-breaking and consensus was to better document the challenges and defer making a change until some point in the future where a new media type was introduced that would allow breaking changes.


> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

> 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

As this is an update to RFC7807 there are already numerous implementations of this media type with widesread adoption. This update does not make changes that would invalidate existing implementations. The only new feature that would require adoption by implementations is support for the HTTP problem field. Use of HTTP problem field is options.

The document introduces a new mechanism to reserve space for future keywords to be introduced without conflicting with extensions. It is theoretically possible that the reserved space could conflict with existing extensions but the WG believes the risk is low and therefore acceptable.

## Additional Reviews

> 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other WG that may be interested in this work would be the HTTP WG and there is a significant overlap in the members of both groups.  I am not aware of an external organization that it would be beneficial to have review this document.

> 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The essence of the media type has not changed in this document and so the prior approval of media type experts remains valid.

> 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module

> 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I validated all XML, YAML and JSON content in the documentation with linters. The CI process for the document runs rfc-http-validate-py to ensure HTTP examples are valid.

## Document Shepherd Checks

> 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes this document is needed. The updates help to clarify the intent and usage of the media type.  It is clearly written and ready to be handed off to the AD.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

- RF5234 is a normative reference for ABNF
- Base64 encoding is not used
- It is not a binary protocol so byte-order is not relevant
- No date/time properties are defined in the document.
- The media type is based on JSON or XML and follows the internationalization, charset and unicode rules defined for those formats.
- Language support relies on the HTTP 'accept-language' mechanism
- No new status codes are introduced.
- The media type has already been registered.
- This document does not describe a protocol that needs versioning. Versioning would require creation of a new media type.
- JSON format uses JSON Schema to describe format.
- XML format uses RelaxNG to describe format.


> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  The existing RFC7807 is a proposed standard, and this document is an update.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors have confirmed this requirement has been met as there are no required disclosures.

> 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Authors have signaled willingness to be listed by their active participation in the effort.

> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The following editorial nits remain:

- Normative reference to HTTP spec needs to be updated to latest published document
- Abstract should mention that this document obsoletes RFC7807
- A later version of JSON Schema exists for the informative reference.
- Discussion Venues note should be removed.
- Introduction should briefly explain what has changed from 7807 and why.
- Summary of Changes section should provide greater detail on the motivation and changes
- Errata 5515 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5515 should be addressed.

Update: These nits have been addressed in draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All references are correctly assigned as normative or informative.

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are to either IETF or W3C documents that are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document will obsolete RFC7807.  It is indicated in the document metadata. According to the nits tool, it is recommended to mention this in the abstract.

> 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations section requests that the media type registry be updated to point to the new document for the existing registered http-problem media types.  It also requests the creation of a new registry for problem types and registers a single entry in that registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document requests the creation of the "HTTP Problem Types Registry". The section describes the required fields of the registry in Section 5.2 as per RFC8126. Instructions to experts are clear.
Mark Nottingham would be appropriate to be a designated expert. 

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document achieved broad support across the members of the working group.

> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The most challenging issue has been related to including non-normative content that describes how to use http-problem in JSON-LD format. A few members of the JSON-LD community have asked for this document to identify and effectively reserve a base URI that can be used to uniquely identify the elements of the http-problem model. Reserving a URI space does not seem appropriate for non-normative content, and the WG does not believe it warrants delaying the completion of the document in order to normatively include a JSON-LD variant of the http-problem model.

There was extended discussion over the challenges with the use of relative URI references in "type" property. No resolution could be found that was non-breaking and consensus was to better document the challenges and defer making a change until some point in the future where a new media type was introduced that would allow breaking changes.


> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

> 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

As this is an update to RFC7807 there are already numerous implementations of this media type with widesread adoption. This update does not make changes that would invalidate existing implementations. The only new feature that would require adoption by implementations is support for the HTTP problem field. Use of HTTP problem field is options.

The document introduces a new mechanism to reserve space for future keywords to be introduced without conflicting with extensions. It is theoretically possible that the reserved space could conflict with existing extensions but the WG believes the risk is low and therefore acceptable.

## Additional Reviews

> 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other WG that may be interested in this work would be the HTTP WG and there is a significant overlap in the members of both groups.  I am not aware of an external organization that it would be beneficial to have review this document.

> 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The essence of the media type has not changed in this document and so the prior approval of media type experts remains valid.

> 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module

> 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I validated all XML, YAML and JSON content in the documentation with linters. The CI process for the document runs rfc-http-validate-py to ensure HTTP examples are valid.

## Document Shepherd Checks

> 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes this document is needed. The updates help to clarify the intent and usage of the media type.  It is clearly written and ready to be handed off to the AD.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

- RF5234 is a normative reference for ABNF
- Base64 encoding is not used
- It is not a binary protocol so byte-order is not relevant
- No date/time properties are defined in the document.
- The media type is based on JSON or XML and follows the internationalization, charset and unicode rules defined for those formats.
- Language support relies on the HTTP 'accept-language' mechanism
- No new status codes are introduced.
- The media type has already been registered.
- This document does not describe a protocol that needs versioning. Versioning would require creation of a new media type.
- JSON format uses JSON Schema to describe format.
- XML format uses RelaxNG to describe format.


> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  The existing RFC7807 is a proposed standard, and this document is an update.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors have confirmed this requirement has been met as there are no required disclosures.

> 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Authors have signaled willingness to be listed by their active participation in the effort.

> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The following editorial nits remain:

- Normative reference to HTTP spec needs to be updated to latest published document
- Abstract should mention that this document obsoletes RFC7807
- A later version of JSON Schema exists for the informative reference.
- Discussion Venues note should be removed.
- Introduction should briefly explain what has changed from 7807 and why.
- Summary of Changes section should provide greater detail on the motivation and changes
- Errata 5515 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5515 should be addressed.

Update: These nits have been addressed in draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-04

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All references are correctly assigned as normative or informative.

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are to either IETF or W3C documents that are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document will obsolete RFC7807.  It is indicated in the document metadata. According to the nits tool, it is recommended to mention this in the abstract.

> 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations section requests that the media type registry be updated to point to the new document for the existing registered http-problem media types.  It also requests the creation of a new registry for problem types and registers a single entry in that registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document requests the creation of the "HTTP Problem Types Registry". The section describes the required fields of the registry in Section 5.2 as per RFC8126. Instructions to experts are clear.
Mark Nottingham would be appropriate to be a designated expert. 

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document achieved broad support across the members of the working group.

> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

The most challenging issue has been related to including non-normative content that describes how to use http-problem in JSON-LD format. A few members of the JSON-LD community have asked for this document to identify and effectively reserve a base URI that can be used to uniquely identify the elements of the http-problem model. Reserving a URI space does not seem appropriate for non-normative content, and the WG does not believe it warrants delaying the completion of the document in order to normatively include a JSON-LD variant of the http-problem model.

There was extended discussion over the challenges with the use of relative URI references in "type" property. No resolution could be found that was non-breaking and consensus was to better document the challenges and defer making a change until some point in the future where a new media type was introduced that would allow breaking changes.


> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

> 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

As this is an update to RFC7807 there are already numerous implementations of this media type with widesread adoption. This update does not make changes that would invalidate existing implementations. The only new feature that would require adoption by implementations is support for the HTTP problem field. Use of HTTP problem field is options.

The document introduces a new mechanism to reserve space for future keywords to be introduced without conflicting with extensions. It is theoretically possible that the reserved space could conflict with existing extensions but the WG believes the risk is low and therefore acceptable.

## Additional Reviews

> 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The only other WG that may be interested in this work would be the HTTP WG and there is a significant overlap in the members of both groups.  I am not aware of an external organization that it would be beneficial to have review this document.

> 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The essence of the media type has not changed in this document and so the prior approval of media type experts remains valid.

> 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module

> 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

I validated all XML, YAML and JSON content in the documentation with linters. The CI process for the document runs rfc-http-validate-py to ensure HTTP examples are valid.

## Document Shepherd Checks

> 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes this document is needed. The updates help to clarify the intent and usage of the media type.  It is clearly written and ready to be handed off to the AD.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

- RF5234 is a normative reference for ABNF
- Base64 encoding is not used
- It is not a binary protocol so byte-order is not relevant
- No date/time properties are defined in the document.
- The media type is based on JSON or XML and follows the internationalization, charset and unicode rules defined for those formats.
- Language support relies on the HTTP 'accept-language' mechanism
- No new status codes are introduced.
- The media type has already been registered.
- This document does not describe a protocol that needs versioning. Versioning would require creation of a new media type.
- JSON format uses JSON Schema to describe format.
- XML format uses RelaxNG to describe format.


> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  The existing RFC7807 is a proposed standard, and this document is an update.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors have been reminded. 

> 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Authors have signaled willingness to be listed by their active participation in the effort and have been given the opportunity to request their names be removed if they so wish.

> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The following editorial nits remain:

- Normative reference to HTTP spec needs to be updated to latest published document
- Abstract should mention that this document obsoletes RFC7807
- A later version of JSON Schema exists for the informative reference.
- Discussion Venues note should be removed.
- Introduction should briefly explain what has changed from 7807 and why.
- Summary of Changes section should provide greater detail on the motivation and changes
- Errata 5515 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5515 should be addressed.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All references are correctly assigned as normative or informative.

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are to either IETF or W3C documents that are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references in this document.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document will obsolete RFC7807.  It is indicated in the document metadata. According to the nits tool, it is recommended to mention this in the abstract.

> 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations section requests that the media type registry be updated to point to the new document for the existing registered http-problem media types.  It also requests the creation of a new registry for problem types and registers a single entry in that registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

The document requests the creation of the "HTTP Problem Types Registry". The section describes the required fields of the registry in Section 5.2 as per RFC8126. Instructions to experts are clear.
Mark Nottingham would be appropriate to be a designated expert. 

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

This is a two-week Working Group Last Call. If you have objections or concerns about this document, please post them by the end of the month.  Thank you.