Change:
Note that this PR sits on top of
CoAP Response Codes are an optional feature and should be discussed in a separate section. Rationale for the feature The CoAP response-code is already carried by the CoAP header, so it doesn't make sense adding it to the PD payload that goes from Server to Client. It does however make sense for a Client that is about to ingest the received PD into a log pipeline to "enrich" it with ancillary Information from the underlying CoAP transaction. In this context, response-code is probably the most basic attribute that one wants to carry over as it is also commonly used as a high-level partition key for log visualisation.
addressed by
We should provide a default set of ready-to-use PD types associated with the existing CoAP status codes, intended for carrying (and enriching) the associated status code semantics. The (rough) plan is to define an “about:coap” namespace with one PD type for each registered . An application could use such PDs without the need to register anything. Just pick the "right" type and populate the relevant fields, job done. As a nice side-effect, this would allow exercising the registration procedure, including the definition of the PD type's registry structure and providing a first set of registrations.

Discussion:
2. <del> A CoAP Problem Details is a CoRAL document with the following </del> <ins> A CoRE Problem Details is a CoRAL document with the following </ins> elements: "type" (id) - The problem type.  This is a mandatory element.

Consumers MUST use "type" as primary identifiers for the problem type; the "title" string is advisory and included only for consumers <del> who are not aware of the semantics of the "type" value. </del> <ins> who are not aware of the semantics of the "type" value.  An initial set of "type"s and corresponding "title"s is defined in sec-response- code-types. </ins> The "detail" member, if present, ought to focus on helping the client correct the problem, rather than giving debugging information.

3. <ins> This document defines an initial set of Problem Detail types that match the corresponding CoAP response codes in the 4.xx (client error) and 5.xx (server error) space.  See tbl-response-code-types. When using one such problem type, an application MUST make sure that the type matches the CoAP response code in the underlying CoAP transaction. If a title element is used in the Problem Details payload, it SHOULD be populated with the title corresponding to the type. The types defined in this document reflect the state of the relevant portion of the "CoAP Codes" registry at the time of writing. 4. In the following sections we introduce specific (albeit "common enough") use cases, and define the extensions to the basic format needed to support them. 4.1. Consumers of Problem Details might be located at the far end of a logging and analytics pipeline.  For example, this might be the case when a CoAP server or CoAP API gateway is located in an edge gateway node and forwards its logs to a cloud collector, which in turn aggregates a potentially huge number of different servers and transactions (see fig-log-pipeline). It is quite common in a situation like the above that an already deployed server is temporarily put in "tracing mode" to diagnose a failure.  In this case having a separate channel for the tracing info provides a superior solution (in terms of ease of ingesting and processing) to overloading the "detail" field and having to write ad- hoc filtering logics to extract the relevant information from it. Cost-wise, the producer would not incur any added overhead while, from the transport perspective, the slight increase in bandwidth to support the extra structuring is typically dwarfed by the (verbose) content of the diagnostic payload.  The same mechanism would also be useful during the development and test of a new application, giving the developer insight into the internal state of the application. The additional protocol element is: "diag" (text) - a string.  It may contain anything of user's choice: extra information complementing the what already present in "detail", a stack trace, a distributed trace span ending in an error condition, etc. Leaking private or sensitive data SHOULD be avoided. 4.1.1. The example in fig-example-diag-stack has a "diag" element with a stack trace associated with the error condition. 5. </ins> Problem type definitions MAY extend the Problem Details document with additional elements to convey additional, problem-specific information.

they do not recognize; this allows problem types to evolve and include additional information in the future. <del> 3.1. </del> <ins> 5.1. </ins> The example in fig-example-ext-full has all the basic elements as well as an additional, type-specific element. <del> 4. </del> <ins> 6. </ins> Problem Details for CoAP APIs are serialized in the CoRAL binary format.  See Section 11 of RFC7252 for security considerations

The security and privacy considerations outlined in Section 5 of RFC7807 apply in full. <del> 5. </del> <ins> 7. </ins> TODO.