Draft: draft-ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis

Commentary: This necessitated rearranging the section on members for clarity . Also , " Consumers MUST use the ' type ' string ... " was changed to " Consumers MUST use the ' type ' URI ... " for consistency . 
 Pulling this conversation out of : Relative path URLs like act counter - intuitively . At first glance , they are some kind of api - global identifier , but in fact they should be considered as a path relative to the current resource , so an response from is a totally distinct error type to an response from . That is likely not what anybody intended . In addition , it appears that almost all implementations of this spec do not take that into account , parsing and comparing type URIs directly , and never using the resource URI that returned it at all . This is a likely footgun for users implementing this spec , and there are easy better alternatives ( see ) , so we should highlight that . 
 Minor but important nitpick - sorry ! Those two examples are actually the same - the resolved value is . The relative path in this case would replace the final path segment , not append to it . A better example could be vs . This does fantastically highlight why relative URLs are difficult to use though :) 
 Haha , good catch ! The same would apply if I 'd included a trailing slash too I think : . Glad I 've successfully illustrated my point though : facepalm : 
 I think this was addressed by - can we close ? 
 Yes , I think so ! : +1 : 
 Pulling this conversation out of : It 's clear that there 's demand for error codes scoped to the API , without creating documentation pages for each code and linking to them in the field . There are many ways that implementers could do this , from linking to non - existent URLs to URNs to tags URIs , etc . It would be useful if the specification included examples of this , and made a clear recommendation for this case . 
 We ( well , mostly have made some good progress on the other issues raised out of but we have n't looked at this one yet . As strawman to get this moving , how about : we register a URN namespace i d , and we recommend that non - dereferenceable URIs should be URNs using that , namespaced with an appropriate domain and raw type i d , for example : . Would that work ? It would give us a clear solution to recommend , which is explicit but easy to read , with minimal extra complexity or overhead for implementers ( imo ) . I do n't have examples , but I suspect there are other standards elsewhere that would appreciate having a problem i d namespace for URNs as well . I do n't love using a domain for namespacing a non - locator , but I think some namespacing is preferable , and I 'm not sure what other namespaces would be suitable . Alternatives very welcome : smile : 
 We penciled in the URI prefix for registered types as " " in , but that was not finalised . I think registering one or more problems as exemplars is a good path forward for this and other issues ( e.g. , as discussed in ) . We need to be very careful to set a good example in them , which means we need good candidates ; I 'm thinking ' JSON Validation Error ' and ' XML Validation Error ' might be appropriate ( perhaps along with corresponding wellformedness errors ) . If we choose a urn , I suspect there will be considerable pressure to use or something similar , as per . 
 my understanding of the " urn : ietf : params " namespace is that it is meant to be used for parameters managed / defined by IETF specs . i think the original 's suggestion intent was to have a " safe prefix " for a namespace which then would be " unmanaged " with some conventions around that , such as using domains names . i think the idea of giving examples ( and even a suggested namespace along with conventions for using it ) is a good one . that way we can clearly support both scenarios : if you 're planning on making documentation available , use a resolvable URI but keep in mind that this best should be managed in a way so that it works for a good number of years . if you 're planning on just identifying problem types , use a non - resolvable URI , and here 's a recipe for doing it . 
 : +1 : exactly I think is relevant in that it would be helpful to everybody if we can follow our own recommendations in our own problem i d registry , but it 's otherwise independent . 
 the difficulty may be that IETF has an institutional approach for managing parameters ( urn : ietf : params : http - problems mentioned by above ) , whereas most orgs minting problem types probably wo n't have one and wo n't create one . which may lead to us to saying three things about what kind of URI to use : check out common problem types registered under urn : ietf : params : http - problems and consider reusing one if it fits . use URIs when creating dereferencable problem type identifiers . when using non - dereferencable problem type identifiers be clear about that by using non - dereferencable URIs , and here 's an URN - based recipe how to do that . 
 Ah , I see , ok . Yes , that makes sense , and given that the 3 part recommendation seems reasonable to me . 
 to be used for parameters managed / defined by IETF specs . No , it 's for parameter name spaces managed by IETF documents -- which this would be . We could also give an example that uses a URI . 
 that 's what i wanted to say . so these URIs / examples would just cover the common problem types that would be managed by the spec . which then would be for those other types that people / orgs are minting and where they say these are not resolvable , right ? i think for those terry proposed a URN namespace instead of tag URIs , but either way it simply would help to state the use case ( " your own types , not intended to be resolvable " ) and provide a recipe ( " here 's one way to do it " ) . the main point seems to be : the spec should mention both " common types " which may even get a registry , and " private types " which probably are using a different namespace , and we could suggest one pattern for doing that . 
 In Twitter , this was the only and much - repeated comment . I 'll copy some of the posts from there in here : ( me ): This confusion is also repeated frequently elsewhere , e.g. it 's the top complaint in unrelated of the standard . Meanwhile ( on the first page of results for " problem details standard " ) says : Arguably is the most useful field in the standard , so this is not a good result . I think it 'd be useful to discuss this , at least to document the reasoning here more clearly , and to consider alternative approaches and/or alternative ways to make type URIs easier for  . 
 I 'll add a separate comment , from my personal point of view : As far as I understand , the goal is to encourage namespacing of error types , is that right ? Are there other benefits that the URI provides ? Imo , it 's quite unusual as a web API response - it reminds me of a more rigorous XML - style API design with careful namespacing of all identifiers , rather than the less rigorous JSON formats that are now more common . It feels inconsistent with other HTTP standards too , e.g. link relation types do not use URIs as type identifiers . Similarly , while API developers will be familiar with HTTP URLs , a great many ( I believe ) are not familiar with the URIs more generally and the other formats available ( e.g.  tag URIs - I 'd like to think I 'm reasonably interested in the standards and tools available , and I 'd never even heard of these ! ) . Recommending that unique i d for an error type to be a documentation URL is problematic , because documentation URLs may well change and unique ids must not ( yes , old documentation URLs should redirect to new ones , but there 's not always a 1 - 1 mapping of URLs , it 's messy to keep using the incorrect URL / domains in this field , and we all know this is n't always true / possible anyway ) . Having a separate optional documentation URL instead would be more useful imo . Right now , it 's not guaranteed that a type URL is dereferenceable , so applications must effectively treat it as never dereferenceable . A separate field ( or indeed link relation ) would be defined as such , making it usable in many more cases . Making it an opaque string instead would still allow for the use of URIs for namespacing if desired , and we could still recommend that users do that without necessarily requiring that . 
 URIs can be dereferenceable . That 's a pretty significant feature . Perhaps the RFC can mention the possibility to use HTTP 's features to make URIs stable , such as using stable API URLs in that perform HTTP redirects towards the ( ever changing ) documentation . I think that 's a horrible suggestion . Big . Opaque strings are already allowed . I do n't really understand the problem here . The last paragraph of states the following : This means is perfectly valid . 
 The type field currently has to be a URI Reference . This means it can either be a URI or a relative - ref . This in turn means that you can use almost any bare string in there and still be following the letter of the RFC , even if not the intention . I 've seen examples of exactly that - with values for that are actually just error codes because , strictly speaking , they are legal relative URIs that just do n't happen to resolve to anything . Personally , I 've no major problem with that , except that it makes it much more likely to get collisions across APIs - with two different APIs using the same type " URI " to mean different things . I can imagine there are some big benefits to be obtained if the URI is dereferenceable though . Things like getting human - readable documentation from it , or    that describes the shape of the problem details . Dereferencing an URI might take you directly to the log messages for what went wrong ( for internal APIs only ! ) But equally , saying that these must be dereferenceable is potentially quite a big hurdle for many smaller developers that would potentially either stop them using this or else just have them ignore the difficult bits . 
 Currently , is not dereferenceable though , explicitly . The RFC says " Consumers SHOULD NOT automatically dereference the type URI " , and has no mechanism to know when it could be dereferenceable . In effect , it 's manually dereferenceable only . Imo it would be more useful there was such a mechanism , or indeed a separate always - dereferenceable URL elsewhere . Could you be more specific about why ? I see - that 's not communicated at all right now ! If that 's intended , I think it would be useful to communicate that better in the spec . Currently every single example in the spec is an absolute HTTP URL , all discussion of the standard elsewhere does the same , and I think the comments above clearly show that other options are n't widely recognized . Illustrating that a classic error code string is allowed but a full URL is encouraged would resolve quite a few of the concerns there I think . 
 Race condition posting there , sorry - to reply to Ok , I think this agrees with point , and this is likely a communication issue rather than a change to the format itself them . Agree , I 'd love to have a documented way to know when that 's possible . Making it possible to include a dereferenceable URL explicitly but optionally would be a big help . 
 that would n't be great as a pattern to recommend . the actual error URI in this case is the relative URI resolved against the URI of the context ( in this case , the resource that returned the error ) . so while this is technically legal , it 's pretty bad in terms of utility when it comes to implementations properly handling the type values as URIs . 
 Yeah , we both posted the same thing at the same time :) And yes , I think we are both saying the exact same thing . Edit - looking at timestamps it was n't the exact same time . Just my window had n't updated at the time ! Maybe I 'm wrong , but I 've always read that with the emphasis on " automatically " . As in - dereference only when needed and not always . And I 've read it like that because some scenarios that would cause errors to be returned would also mean that the URI that is the problem type would also fail to resolve , and potentially cause more problems for the service ( DoS attack or similar . ) Equally , especially for , it could be that the intention is for humans to dereference it and not computers . For example , I 've started using type values similar to for cases where the status code alone tells you everything , but I still want to include a Problem response . There 's also a problem that not all clients are capable of dereferencing all URIs . For example , if it 's an " http " scheme then you need to be able to make HTTP requests to the target server . Not all clients can do that , especially if they are on a closed network . 
 This means " type " : " i - hate - uris " is perfectly valid . I see - that 's not communicated at all right now ! If that 's intended , I think it would be useful to communicate that better in the spec . Currently every single example in the spec is an absolute HTTP URL , all discussion of the standard elsewhere does the same , and I think the comments above clearly show that other options are n't widely recognized . implementations properly handling the type values as URIs . Would it be reasonable then to also include examples of URIs which are not URLs ? e.g. as you suggested on Twitter . 
 i think what we have clearly established is that if ' type ' remains to be defined as a URI , better guidance would be a good idea . 
 just means there should not be automatic dereferencing . Non - automatic dereferencing such as making the URI a user - clickable link , or a developer copying and pasting it into a browser , is perfectly valid , though . That should perhaps be made more explicit . works perfectly well for documentation . Decoupling the problem type from the problem type 's documentation when the former can redirect to the latter just adds confusion , possible inconsistencies , and errors , imho . But it is . As I wrote above , the last paragraph of states the following : … I agree that can be emphasized closer to the definition of and not just as a seemingly unrelated paragraph . A way to accomplish this would be to promote each member in section 3.1 to its own section so the spec can use more than one paragraph to describe each member . Examples are non - normative . To understand the spec , you have to read the normative text . An example containing with a relative URI would be a good addition , though . Agreed . I think URIs sounds like a bad fit for as they are more of a human readable alternative to UUID . 
  , yes , so is actually quite very bad . Doing so is most likely a mistake : if a developer returns as an error type from two different resources , clients must treat those as distinct types , relative to different base URLs . That 's quite surprising ! This is probably not what the dev intended , and code that does treat them as equivalent automatically is not following the spec . It looks like this is a real problem : even the most popular makes this mistake . It matches problem detail classes automatically by comparing the value , and never uses a base URL or relative resolution for type values anywhere . I suspect that it 's not alone in this , and that using bare strings as global error types will work in many places , incorrectly . Imo , tag URIs are a good improvement , but they 're still not great . The most convenient equivalent tag we 'd be suggesting is probably . It 's obvious that it is n't dereferenceable , which is good , but it 's still an unusual error code format . There 's clearly friction with URIs error codes right now , and widespread patterns of not using URIs for error identifiers in every existing API I can find ( e.g. , , ) . Instead , they all use opaque string identifiers decoupled from documentation URLs . From my perspective and I think from the feedback above , it would be useful to have a standard that supported existing common error API patterns . This does n't preclude namespacing where that 's useful , it just does n't enforce it . Ok , I see how this sentence is referring to fully automated dereferencing concerns , thanks ! That 's useful . The spec still supports what I 'm saying though , right ? Even if the type is an HTTP URL , there is no requirement or guarantee that it leads to a real resource . The spec says that it 's encouraged to do so , and no more , and comment that " saying that these must be dereferenceable is potentially quite a big hurdle " seems to agree . Is that not correct ? Assuming that 's right then tooling ca n't use the URI as a helpful documentation link for devs , or anything similar . That 's not valid because is not specified to be a URL of a resource at all . It 's not designed for human or machine consumption , it 's only guaranteed to be usable as a type i d. I think being able to use these URIs would be great . There 's good use cases , from generic HTTP clients that helpfully link to error documentation in exceptions to , where I would love to pull in error docs alongside error responses . To build these tools we need a URL that 's guaranteed to go to docs , if present . If the documentation URL were instead in a link header with an HTML media type , similar to other standards ( e.g. the documentation link for the ) then that would be possible . Using a link header would also better fit with HATEOAS , and would make error docs immediately visible to existing tooling that is n't aware of problem details . Imho , as a developer I would find this spec more useful if they were indeed decoupled , and the type was n't necessarily a URI at all ( meaning no duplication & possible inconsistency ) . Doing so would resolve all the feedback above , would make this standard would be easier to get started with , it 'd support more cases like error types that share the same documentation URLs and support changing doc URLs , it 'd avoid semantics like relative URIs that are not being implemented correctly , it would support more dereferencing use cases , and it would better match existing patterns in other specifications and in existing real - world APIs . I do see how this is subjective and debatable , but there 's many benefits , and imho requiring type URIs like limits some valuable use cases . Going to leave this here for now , since I need to get some other work done ! This is really interesting though , hope these points are helpful . 
 The examples look good to me : … But afaict , none of those APIs implement RFC 7807 and thus are n't very relevant in this discussion . What 's considered " common " is relative and up to the eye of the beholder . Using Universal Resource Identifiers as identifiers should n't be the esoteric , impenetrable mystery it 's being described as , imho . Correct . Why not ? I disagree . this design goal very clearly ( emphasis mine ): … What do you mean with " pull in " ? Why not change it to " guaranteed to go to docs , if dereferenceable " ? There 's no one stopping anyone from doing exactly that . You avoid the duplication of resolved URIs if you use absolute URIs as your problem . It would also be a breaking change with existing software that actually implements the specification according to how it is written . 
 I think the problem is more with relative URIs . If I 've been following the discussion correctly then this : Should be parsed as if the field was actually , because it 's relative to the URL that actually requested the resource in the first place . And ( almost ) nobody actually does that - they all treat it as if the field was just instead . They 're not , really . XML has been doing it for 20 + years with namespace URIs . There are probably examples that go back further too . As soon as you say " guaranteed " then you 're putting a burden on developers . Especially when they plan to support dereferencing them at some future time , but not just yet . They will either ignore it , and thus not follow the spec correctly , or else it 'll force them to use a different pattern for their URIs . 
 Exactly : +1 : . Nowhere do any libraries I 've seen even look at the resource URL , so they can never handle relative types correctly . The specification there states the goal of linking to a useful document and encourages that , but explicitly does not guarantee or mandate it . I think we agree it should n't , and that not all URIs will be links to usable documentation . AFAICT , it 's totally valid to intentionally use an HTTP URI that leads to a 404 . Meanwhile , no developer wants to be given a link to documentation and then hit a 404 . If tools want to present URIs to developers as helpful links to human - readable documentation , they first need to know whether it is actually a link to a resource . The problem with " guaranteed to go to docs , if dereferenceable " as opposed to " if present " is that the former requires automatically dereferencing every to know if it 's dereferenceable . The spec specifically discourages that , for the good reasons you 've pointed out above , so we should n't design for that . An explicit link does n't have this problem at all . Sorry , I do n't mean to portray URIs as completely impenetrable , that 's not fair . It seems true that the huge majority of existing APIs have existing error formats that do n't use URIs for error codes though , and that many developers are n't very familiar with the nuances of URIs , e.g. URNs , tag URIs , etc . URIs are also clearly more complicated than plain strings , and all else being equal it would be good to make implementing this standard ( and all standards ! ) as simple as possible . I really think existing widely used APIs are relevant to this standard ( and all API standards ! ) . Those APIs do n't use this RFC today , but the standard only becomes useful if it 's widely used by real clients and APIs . Popular APIs like Stripe / AWS / et al eventually supporting this is part of that , and adoption is easier for them if it fits their existing patterns ( for example , they would n't need to change their existing error code documentation , or change logic that checks those codes ) . Adoption is similarly easier for clients and APIs responses are easier to immediately understand if the format fits their expectations , which are largely based on the common patterns they see in existing APIs . If we want the standard to be widely adopted , we have to care about existing API patterns ( and I really want this standard to be widely adopted ! ) Ok , so as discussed , using URIs for does have some downsides , but we do have two concrete benefits that we 've mentioned so far : It strongly encourages namespacing . It potentially links the type to a resource . Are there others I 've missed ? I think my position is that the first benefit is good , but IMHO outweighed by the downsides ( and would still be an option for those who want it without requiring URIs ) whilst the 2nd benefit is n't fully realized in the current draft ( you ca n't automatically know whether it 's a usable link or just an i d ) and would be better realized with link headers ( more explicit , more standard , less coupled ) . Yep , even if we agree that this would be beneficial , there is definitely a question of compatibility with existing implementations . I think there 's some good routes through here with minimal impact , and this is still a draft anyway . I do n't think it makes much sense to do detailed analysis & planning for that though until there 's some consensus on the kind of changes we 'd like to make . 
 There 's absolutely no guarantee that can be given by anyone , anywhere , at any time , that any URI will resolve to anything at all . All URIs can lead to 404 , no matter what their context and semantics are and no matter how many different avenues to provide links you give . Given enough time , most URIs end up pointing to a domain squatted by a shark . Is this of concern to RFC 7807bis ? I believe it is n't . Scratch " guarantee " altogether . No guarantees can be given . Let 's work from that premise and see where we go . The perception of impenetrable mystique built around URIs affects both how RFC 7807 's is perceived as well as how hypermedia is approached ( or rather , is n't ) in the realm of APIs . Unlike you , though , I think that 's ample reason to not give in to the perception , but instead , evangelize for more use of URIs both as identifiers as well as the target of hypermedia controls in an API . The fact that most HTTP APIs are n't RESTful by any stretch of the imagination does n't make it right for a standardization organization such as IETF to cave in and succumb to the million flies doctrine . I 'd say the right thing to do is the direct opposite and continue to normalize the use of URIs as well as hypermedia so APIs can become more , not less , RESTful over time . I think that 's just a matter of familiarity . Use URIs enough and they become the opaque identifiers they are meant to be . A simple solution to this may perhaps be to override the base URI . Since   is n't an option and afaik no link relation exists , we need another way to establish a base URI , perhaps by registering the link relation . Another alternative is to add a slash to make the URI absolute : . Now you have a that will be considered equal no matter how you compare it against a given in a response from the same authority . As a reminder of how bad sad the status quo is , perhaps . True . As discussed in , there 's an existing desire to reuse URIs across different APIs , something which is impossible with opaque strings since you have no idea whether coming from three different APIs means : is currently impossible to let a current of air into the enclosed space specified in the request . document specified does not exist in draft form and may be published or deleted . enrolment is currently not possible . Semantical ambiguities like these are n't insignificant and URIs solve them elegantly and efficiently . is a testament to how successful the use of URIs to identify things in an unambiguous , unique , and reusable way , really is . Please elaborate . RFC 7807bis is a draft , RFC 7807 is n't . 
 There 's also the fact that not all URIs are resolvable for all clients . It 's entirely possible that the URI resolves correctly for the server developer , but some client is behind some firewall that does n't allow access to it . Or it might be temporarily down . Or a myriad of other reasons why a reasonable URI ca n't be resolved right now . That 's still relative . If I understand things correctly , the path segment is now absolute but the schema / host / port / etc is n't specified so become relative to the original request . If you got that type from different APIs on different hosts then the resolved absolute URI is still different . It 's perfectly possible with opaque strings . It 's not possible with relative URIs iff the resulting value is first expanded to be an absolute URI - and thus might have a different value based on the scheme / hostname / port of the API being called . If the value was always an absolute URI or a relative URI that did n't get expanded then this problem goes away . Though at that point you 've just got opaque strings that might or might not bear some resemblance to a URI . 
 Yes , that 's why I wrote " from the same " . Not unless these strings are registered and clearly defined in a global registry . I agree that 's just as useless as opaque , non - URI strings . 
 Ok , granted , you ca n't get a perfect guarantee . There is both a semantic and practical difference though between " here is a link that I intend you to dereference to find more information " and " here is a URI that is not intended to be dereferenced , it 's just a type i d " . We currently allow both , intentionally , with no distinguishable difference until you dereference it . When looking for usable links to more information , any tooling is interested only in the former , where the URL is very likely to be useful ( granted , not guaranteed ) . Meanwhile if you ever accidentally use the latter it 's extremely likely to provide a bad user experience . It 's very easy to differentiate these cases , and it would be useful , so we should . Unfortunately that 's the same problem : client implementations do not take the authority into account either , they never use the base URL . I agree that they should , but right now it looks like most implementations of this specification handle both relative & absolute paths incorrectly , and only correctly use fully specified absolute URIs . I agree that URIs are excellent ! I do n't object to the use of URIs , I object to requiring that all APIs errors use URIs in all cases , as we do right now . There 's lots of feedback ( see above ) that others feel similarly , and would like to use this spec without URIs . As an interesting supporting point : the WHATWG URL specification all references to URIs because " URI and IRI are just confusing " . URIs are not well understood by many developers , and that will limit adoption of this spec . Right now , as in the blog post above , some users avoid using entirely because it 's confusing and they do n't want to create pages for every error type . This creates more semantic ambiguity than the status quo ! Ok , one option would be : Make a freeform string where every response from the same API with that code represents the same type of error . Unspecified still defaults to . Just one constraint : if is an absolute URI , it must either be a URI already reserved for that purpose or a URI under the control of the API using it ( e.g. HTTP / tag on your domain ) . This has no compatibility impact for existing APIs using absolute type URIs . Types in their existing responses are still valid and retain extremely similar rules for error type matching ( technically there could be differences , e.g. # fragments in URL should n't be considered in URL comparisons , but I would be astonished if that is in use and working correctly for error handling in any API today ) . No compatibility impact for clients receiving existing responses that are absolute URIs or absolute paths , for similar reasons . Semantics change slightly for clients & APIs using path - relative URI types . Today these should be assumed to be distinct types per endpoint , and they would instead be treated as API - global . Helpfully , it appears that most implementations match this proposed behaviour today already , rather than the specified behaviour . In addition , impact of incompatibility is low : clients would incorrectly treat error types as distinct unrecognized errors , and would fail in slightly less granular ways . Clients who parse as a URI have potential compatibility issues parsing non - URI responses . This risk is low because : This does n't affect or invalidate any existing client & API exchange that works today . It only affects clients newly making requests to APIs who start using some new URI - unparseable error type . URI syntax is very permissive , so most plain strings that would be used are also valid relative URIs , e.g works just fine ( though , as mentioned , its semantics change slightly as it 's currently a relative URI ) . It 's very difficult to come up with examples of plausible error codes that would fail to parse as URIs . We could tighten the allowed characters if this is a concern . If a type is an absolute URI defined in a URI registry of common types or otherwise recognized by the client , the error SHOULD be treated as an instance of the globally registered error types ( i.e. ) Fully compatible , and we retain the ability to share types across different services By putting into this URI registry , we retain the same semantics for that APIs are encouraged to use absolute URIs as types , for namespacing and type - sharing benefits , but this becomes optional . APIs who have documentation relevant to the error response should include a link header . I 'd suggest we mint a new relation . This would pair very nicely with the existing . Service - doc provides general documentation for the resource , problem - doc provides documentation for the type of error returned . That resolves all the points above , with minimal backward compatibility impact . It still supports all the benefits that absolute URIs give us for those who want that , but also supports other cases too . Would that work for you ? Are there specific compatibility concerns in here that would need further mitigation ? 
 I 've been working with XML for many years , where XML namespaces are URIs that almost never dereference to anything . In fact , there are normally specific mechanisms in XML tooling to know where the XSD for a given namespace is simply because the namespace URI does n't dereference . And it works fine . People use it , and all is good . So tooling only being interested in dereferenceable links is n't strictly accurate . In terms of your proposal . My one concern with it is that I suspect many developers will opt for the choice of just using error codes instead of URIs , because they find it easier . That then means that you lose namespacing , you lose the ability for different APIs to share the same error types , and probably other things . There 's also the minor concern that strictly speaking you ca n't distinguish a URI from an arbitrary string that happens to have the same format . Somebody might write a string that just happens to contain in the middle of it . Is that a URI ? Or is it a coincidence ? That 's very much an edge case though and almost certainly can be ignored :) The impact on existing clients is also a concern , if it means that suddenly they ca n't understand errors that they could before . That 's only an issue for clients that are correctly handling relative URIs though , and I do n't know how many of those there are - if any . 
 True . I 'm really talking about a specific subset of tooling , I should be more specific . I 'm thinking about tooling that might format an error response for human consumption , like debuggers , manual clients like Postman & curl , loggers , and other error reporting tools . I think those are tools that could get a lot of value from this spec , and in many of these cases it 's useful to know if the URL is documentation intended for human consumption . It 's slightly more general unfortunately , since some absolute URIs only contain e.g. . If that 's a concern , I think saying " error types must not contain : unless they 're an absolute URI " would be a reasonable constraint , and would support most error codes you see in the real world . Explicitly specifying that would help parsers to quickly differentiate the two cases too . That is quite possible . It appears that there 's also a group of people who currently avoid the spec altogether though , or use it suboptimally , because of the URI requirement . Standard formatting of error messages seems very valuable even without URIs . Personally I 'm OK with this . Error types intended to be reused elsewhere can use URIs , and error types not intended for global reuse do n't need URIs . The challenging case is when you want to reuse a URI defined by somebody else who did n't explicitly make it reusable . I 'm OK with not supporting that , but I see how others might find this useful . Yep . I doubt it 's used much though , and I suspect this change would actually increase the number of implementations that matched the spec when using relative URIs . I 'd be really interested to know if anybody can find an example of a relative URI in production anywhere though . 
 But RFC 7807 does not state " here is a URI that is not intended to be dereferenced , it 's just a type i d " . It states that should not be automatically dereferenced . Dereferencing based on a user 's action , perhaps by clicking " view documentation " in a UI is perfectly fine and should probably be encouraged for documentation purposes in the specification . rfc7808bis should seek to clarify that . If the link does n't resolve , the UI would have to recover from that failure somehow regardless of the semantics and guarantees that were given regarding the link that was dereferenced . " Sorry , no documentation for is available " is a fine error message for just as it is described by the specification as well as for a new URI that as such do n't provide anything valuable does n't already provide . Why would the user experience be bad ? Please elaborate . Then they do n't have the problem described , since they will just compare with across all responses , regardless of the context ( base ) URI . For clients that do n't treat as a URI , in response A is just an opaque string , indiscernible from in response B , even though A and B may be from entirely different authorities altogether ( although within the same API , I assume ) . I think you meant " URL " and not " URI " here , but regardless I agree with WHATWG in that both " URI " and " IRI " are confusing and do n't add much to the more prevalent " URL " . I 'm not sure IETF is ready to replace its usage of " URI " to " URL " yet , though . That would probably require rfc3986bis of some sort . I agree URIs are not well understood . But I think that is a problem and believe the solution is not to cave in and stop using URIs , but to use even more URIs . ! Then let 's invest in making it less confusing in rfc7807bis ! They do n't have to . Let 's be more explicit about that . More examples could perhaps help . Sorry , no . I 'll just +1 criticism here . I do n't think this is going to work . In hindsight , it may have been better if non - URI values were interpreted not as relative URIs , but as implicit URNs or something similar . But that train sailed with a boat on water under the bridge more than 5 years ago . Yes , your suggestion is going to break clients with the following expectations : URIs that point to external documentation . Non - absolute URIs are relative to the context . So tooling only being interested in dereferenceable links is n't strictly accurate . Is n't it possible for these tools to only present documentation upon a user 's explicit action ? If is dereferenceable , the content is intended for human consumption . Perhaps we could survey these people on the reason they 're not using RFC 7807 instead of just speculating ? I believe your suspicion may be correct . I would love to see the result of a survey of existing implementations before concluding , but I 'm currently +0 to make the compromise of making non - URI implicit URNs or some other similar solution that does n't convert them into context - relative  ) URIs . 
 To expand on the " making non - URI implicit URNs " , this sort of implicit expansion has precedent in 's definition of : The value of " rel " MUST be a string that is non - empty and matches either the " isegment - nz - nc " or the " IRI " production in ] . Note that use of a relative reference other than a simple name is not allowed . If a name is given , implementations MUST consider the link relation type equivalent to the same name registered within the IANA Registry of Link Relations ( ) , and thus to the IRI that would be obtained by appending the value of the rel attribute to the string " " . In , values are either required to be registered in IANA 's Link Relation Registry , or in the case of Extension Relation Types , full URIs . RFC 7807 's deviation from these two mechanisms in making relative to the context is perhaps the source of the greatest issue here . I 've come to agree that should be comparable across problem documents disregard of their request context . 
 Hey - that 's interesting , but it 's backwards - incompatible , so we 'd need to use a new media type . Is that worth it ( considering the resulting confusion , etc . ) ? 
 Sorry for being imprecise . What I meant was that I agree with ( part of ) the problem description . I 'm +0 on actually doing anything about it . If enough weight is put behind a new media type to break with the current implementations of , then I would not oppose it . 
 The obvious concern with a new media type is that implementers will either need to migrate completely over to it , or else end up supporting two different ways of representing problems . That feels at odds with what - to me - is one of the major benefits of RFC-7807 in the first place , that there is one standard way to do this and you 'd need a good reason to do something different . 
 the discussion around using URIs as identifiers has been had what feels like a million times . everybody knows the implications . it 's a design trade - off . given that there is no clear " winner " i think not breaking the existing media type should make it a big preference to stick with what we have . i am more than willing to make proposals how to improve the language so that people reading the spec get a bit more context and assistance . but as we all know , specs are not read as much as one might wish , so we 'll still see broken implementations out there . that 's just life . 
 Whilst it would still be technically incompatible , I think the practical outcome from would be that : The incompatibility only affects fully relative URIs ( e.g. ) . Both absolute URIs and absolute paths would retain effectively identical semantics to the current spec . That incompatible case is not used or discussed in the wild anywhere that I 've ever seen ( counter examples very welcome ! ) In generic implementations , the incompatible case appears to be incorrectly implemented everywhere , with every implementation I 've seen already matching the proposed rather than specified behaviour for this case . It seems likely that this breaking change would dramatically increase the number of implementations correctly implementing the specification today . Does that affect the calculus on breaking changes here ? ( I do agree that proposal to make relative error types global by default has much larger compatibility implications , unfortunately , and that minting a new media type has repercussions that make this unlikely to be worthwhile in either case ) 
 Not quite . Absolute URIs retain identical semantics . Absolute paths only retain identical semantics if they are from the same scheme and authority . If they come from different authorities then the resolved URI from those absolute paths is different , and thus the value to use under the current spec is different . However , as you say , nobody does that . At least , nobody that I 've ever seen . I do n't know how we 'd find out if introducing a breaking change is actually going to break things in any real code , but it seems to me that this proposed change is the cleanest route and that the risk of breaking things is mitigated by the fact that ( almost ) everybody does it wrong now anyway . The other option would be to introduce not a new media type , but a new parameter to the existing media type . So it becomes . Anyone who does n't specify a value for would then be assumed to be using the most recent version of the spec , which is what we 're discussing here . If they explicitly want to retain the old behaviour then they would specify . ( That would also open the door for further future changes that introduce a as well . ) I will say , I 'm not hugely thrilled by that idea . I prefer trying to keep things simple and not need to do any versioning like that . But it is an option . 
 In the proposed version , both relative & absolute paths would be considered as scoped to the API ( i.e. the scheme & authority ) . So should be treated as same type of error everywhere in the API ( unlike today ) and as distinct types if returned from different APIs ( same as today ) . does n't change though : it should be treated as the same type everywhere in the same API ( the same as today ) and as distinct types if returned by different APIs ( the same as today ) . Does that not match today 's semantics ? Maybe I 'm missing something , do you have an example where the behaviour changes ? 
 So it seems like we have some agreement that we do n't want to introduce a new mime type , and as a result we should n't change the nature of in a backwards - incompatible fashion . Proposal : we should resolve this issue by focusing on making the spec communicate more clearly about how to use URIs successfully in , possibly adding new fields , etc . in separate issues . Once we do that , we should close this issue , but label it so that if for some reason we find a compelling enough reason to mint a new mime type , we remember to reconsider . 
 Personally I 'd still prefer the technically - incompatible - but - probably - more - compatible proposal with no mime type change at all , but I can understand if that 's not an acceptable risk . If we 're talking about guaranteed - safe changes we can make , the things I 'd personally find useful are : Making a clear & simple recommendation in the spec for users who have a simple error code and who do n't want to link the error type to a documentation page . E.g. they should use tags , or URNs , or absolute paths , or something else . Discouraging fully relative paths , since they 're very counter - intuitive , most / all implementations handle them wrong , and we may want to change their semantics in a future breaking change . Providing some way for clients to know if a type URL is designed to be dereferenced as a link to documentation , or if it 's simply acting as an identifier . I 'll file new issues for those , and we can continue discussion on them independently there . Happy for this issue to be tagged and left for a future breaking change in the meantime if that 's all we can do for now . 
 See PR . Thoughts ? 
 Am merging , which will close this . If anyone has further input , please open a new issue or comment . 
 I 've a couple of quick thoughts on ways this could go slightly further , but I think this is already a great improvement that would
"type" (string) - A URI reference RFC3986 that identifies the
problem type.  This specification encourages that, when
dereferenced, it provide human-readable documentation for the
problem type (e.g., using HTML HTML5).  When this member is not
present, its value is assumed to be "about:blank".
"title" (string) - A short, human-readable summary of the problem
type.  It SHOULD NOT change from occurrence to occurrence of the
problem, except for purposes of localization (e.g., using
proactive content negotiation; see I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics,
Section 12.1).
"status" (number) - The HTTP status code (I-D.ietf-httpbis-
semantics, Section 15) generated by the origin server for this
occurrence of the problem.
"detail" (string) - A human-readable explanation specific to this
occurrence of the problem.
"instance" (string) - A URI reference that identifies the specific
occurrence of the problem.  It may or may not yield further
information if dereferenced.
Consumers MUST use the "type" string as the primary identifier for
the problem type; the "title" string is advisory and included only
for users who are not aware of the semantics of the URI and do not
have the ability to discover them (e.g., offline log analysis).
Consumers SHOULD NOT automatically dereference the type URI.
The "type" member is a JSON string containing a URI reference RFC3986
that identifies the problem type.
This specification encourages that, when dereferenced, it provide
human-readable documentation for the problem type (e.g., using HTML
HTML5).  When this member is not present, its value is assumed to be
"about:blank".
When "type" contains a relative URI, it is resolved relative to the
document's base URI, as per RFC3986, Section 5.  However, using
relative URIs can cause confusion, and they might not be handled
correctly by all implementations.  For example, if the two resources
"https://api.example.org/foo/bar/123" and "https://api.example.org/
widget/456" both respond with a "type" equal to the relative URI
reference "example-problem", when resolved they will identify
different resources ("https://api.example.org/foo/bar/example-
problem" and "https://api.example.org/widget/example-problem"
respectively).  As a result, it is RECOMMENDED that absolute URIs be
used in "type" when possible, and that when relative URIs are used,
they include the full path (e.g., "/types/123").
Consumers MUST use the "type" URI (after resolution, if necessary) as
the primary identifier for the problem type.  Consumers SHOULD NOT
automatically dereference the type URI.
The "title" member is a JSON string containing a short, human-
readable summary of the problem type.
It SHOULD NOT change from occurrence to occurrence of the problem,
except for purposes of localization (e.g., using proactive content
negotiation; see I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics, Section 12.1).
The "title" string is advisory and included only for users who are
not aware of the semantics of the URI and do not have the ability to
discover them (e.g., offline log analysis).
The "status" member is a JSON number indicating the HTTP status code
(I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics, Section 15) generated by the origin
server for this occurrence of the problem.
The "detail" member is a JSON string containing a human-readable
explanation specific to this occurrence of the problem.
Note that both "type" and "instance" accept relative URIs; this means
that they must be resolved relative to the document's base URI, as
per RFC3986, Section 5.
The "instance" member is a JSON string containing a URI reference
that identifies the specific occurrence of the problem.  It may or
may not yield further information if dereferenced.
When "instance" contains a relative URI, it is resolved relative to
the document's base URI, as per RFC3986, Section 5.  However, using
relative URIs can cause confusion, and they might not be handled
correctly by all implementations.  For example, if the two resources
"https://api.example.org/foo/bar/123" and "https://api.example.org/
widget/456" both respond with an "instance" equal to the relative URI
reference "example-instance", when resolved they will identify
different resources ("https://api.example.org/foo/bar/example-
instance" and "https://api.example.org/widget/example-instance"
respectively).  As a result, it is RECOMMENDED that absolute URIs be
used in "instance" when possible, and that when relative URIs are
used, they include the full path (e.g., "/instances/123").