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

Contents of follow-in continue response #90

Closed
jricher opened this issue Nov 13, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #427
Closed

Contents of follow-in continue response #90

jricher opened this issue Nov 13, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #427
Assignees

Comments

@jricher
Copy link
Collaborator

jricher commented Nov 13, 2020

§5.2 Continuing During Pending Interaction: Editor's note:

Do we want to be more precise about what's expected inside the "continue" object? I think that at least the URI is required, access token required IF used, etc. This is even if they haven't changed since last time, and the client will use whatever value comes back?

@jricher jricher self-assigned this Jan 31, 2022
@jricher
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jricher commented Feb 9, 2022

Yes, we should be explicit about what's in here every time, and that it should always be included (so a client can rely on it always being there and always using the newest value). No good argument to optimize by omission, since that leads to lazy clients not checking the return values. One quirk: access token value; some servers never see the access token's value after they issue it (they store the hash or other derived reference), and so returning the same value if they want to re-use it is a pain. However, these servers can always rotate the continuation access token, which is recommended (#87) so this point might be moot.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant