[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17878445#comment-17878445
]
Michael Osipov commented on MRESOLVER-600:
------------------------------------------
90 % what you have written refers to obsolete RFCs. Please rewrite your
description.
> Implement RFC9457
> -----------------
>
> Key: MRESOLVER-600
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-600
> Project: Maven Resolver
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Resolver
> Reporter: Mark Dodgson
> Priority: Minor
>
> HTTP1.1 [RFC7230|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230#section-3.1.2]
> section 3.1.2 defines the response status code to optionally include a text
> description (human readable) of the reason for the status code. A more
> detailed RFC is
> [RFC2616|https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec6.html]
> There is an additional [RFC9457|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457] which
> makes use of the body to inform of a reason for the error response allowing
> for easier investigation.
> h2. Why is this important
> [RFC9113|https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9113] is the HTTP2 protocol
> standard and the response status only considers the [status
> code|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9113#name-response-pseudo-header-fiel]
> and not the reason phrase, as such important information can be lost in
> helping the client determine a route cause of a failure.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
