Good catch. Should it be 415 (Unsupported Media Type) plus which of the
following (or which combination of the following):
- A new problem document field (tentatively named
"supportedSerializations": an array of media type strings)?
- A new directory field (tentatively named "supportedSerializations": an
array of media type strings)?
- Should this go in the directory's "meta" object, or in the
directory object itself?
- A HTTP header?
- Something else?
Logan
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Jörn Heissler <acme-sp...@joern.heissler.de>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 17:29:04 -0500, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 2018 9:47 AM, "Felipe Gasper" <fel...@felipegasper.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Could there be some way of using a header like “Accept” for a server to
> > > indicate whether it supports jose, jose+json, or both?
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Logan Widick <logan.wid...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the follow-on (#398) includes the Accept header in error
> responses
> > > (to requests with unacceptable serializations).
> > >
> >
> > Indeed it does!
>
> The way I understand https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.6
> the 406 status and the Accept header are only valid to negotiate
> server-to-client
> content types.
>
> Is it really okay to use them for client-to-server?
> I think code 415 "Unsupported Media Type" is more appropriate:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.13
> Together with an error document specifying the supported JWS
> serializations.
>
> Cheers
> Joern Heissler
>
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
