Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Unsupported algos #13

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024
Merged

Unsupported algos #13

merged 8 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024

Conversation

ioggstream
Copy link
Contributor

@ioggstream ioggstream commented Jul 21, 2024

This PR

  • examples
  • question: can we use normative language in problem details?

@ioggstream ioggstream requested a review from Acconut as a code owner July 21, 2024 22:36
Copy link
Member

@Acconut Acconut left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you very much for this PR!

This section defines the "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#unsupported-hashing-algorithm" problem type. A server MAY use this problem type when responding to a request, whose integrity or integrity preference fields reference a hashing algorithm that the server can not or does not want to support for this request, and if the server wants to indicate this problem to the sender.
This section defines the "https://iana.org/assignments/http-problem-types#unsupported-hashing-algorithm" problem type.
A server MAY use this problem type if it wants to communicate to the client that
none of the hashing algorithms referenced in the integrity or integrity preference fields present in the request,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
none of the hashing algorithms referenced in the integrity or integrity preference fields present in the request,
one of the hashing algorithms referenced in the integrity or integrity preference fields present in the request,

The intention behind this problem type was that at least one algorithm is unsupported and the server wants to communicate this. Of course, the server could also just ignore that algorithm, but it might not want to do this. With this change, it sounds like the problem type is for cases when all hashing algorithms are unsupported.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ioggstream ioggstream Jul 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree. This is a tricky point, because the server is not required to process all algorithms.

We need to decide whether this problem-type applies to just one of the algorithms, or to all of the algorithms.

Probably we need to re-examine this point after some time, so I leave this thread open.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Opened #18 to track this question.

draft-kleidl-digest-fields-problem-types.md Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-kleidl-digest-fields-problem-types.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-kleidl-digest-fields-problem-types.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-kleidl-digest-fields-problem-types.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Acconut Acconut mentioned this pull request Jul 25, 2024
ioggstream and others added 3 commits July 25, 2024 18:32
@Acconut
Copy link
Member

Acconut commented Oct 16, 2024

Thank you for the PR!

@Acconut Acconut merged commit 193daf2 into tus:main Oct 16, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants