Internet DRAFT - draft-divilly-user-defined-resource-error
draft-divilly-user-defined-resource-error
Network Working Group C. Divilly
Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Informational 26 March 2020
Expires: 27 September 2020
User Defined Resource Error HTTP Status Code
draft-divilly-user-defined-resource-error-00
Abstract
This document specifies an additional HyperText Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) status code to indicate server error conditions arising during
evaluation of a user defined resource hosted by the server, rather
than in the server itself.
Conventions and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 September 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
Divilly Expires 27 September 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft User Defined Resource Error Status Code March 2020
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Note to Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Why does 500 Internal Server Error not suffice? . . . . . 2
3. 5NN User Defined Resource Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Relationship to 500 Internal Server Error . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Note to Readers
Per [RFC7231] Section 8.2.2 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
rfc7231#section-8.2.2) this document avoids allocating a specific
number for the proposed new HTTP status code until there is clear
consensus that it will be registered. The code "5NN" is used
throughout this document to denote this new status code.
2. Introduction
Some HTTP servers offer mechanisms for users to define their own
programmatically generated resources. This specification terms such
a resource as a 'User Defined Resource'. In such cases it is useful
to distinguish between errors arising due to defects in the User
Defined Resource and errors arising due to defects in the server
itself.
This document proposes a new 5NN HTTP status code. This status code
indicates that an error occurred when the server attempted to produce
a representation of the User Defined Resource, and the error occurred
when attempting to evaluate the program that generates the resource,
rather than an error condition in the server itself.
2.1. Why does 500 Internal Server Error not suffice?
This section is non normative.
The current state of the art is to represent errors in User Defined
Resources as a 500 Internal Server Error status. In the author's
experience this is not optimal for the following reasons:
Divilly Expires 27 September 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft User Defined Resource Error Status Code March 2020
* It is widely understood that a 500 Internal Server Error
represents a serious error condition that likely needs remediation
by the server's operators
* Error conditions in User Defined Resources are frequent and
expected. In a well architected system with isolation between the
environment executing the User Defined Resource program and the
server hosting the User Defined Resource, errors should be benign
and not require any remediation by the server's operators
In the author's own experience we have attempted to address this by
taking two actions:
1. Add an additional response header to enable tools to detect that
the error condition relates to a user defined resource and should
not be treated as an error that requires remediation
2. Add explanatory text to the response body to communicate to the
end user that the error represents a problem in a User Defined
Resource
Our experience is that these approaches have very limited
effectiveness:
* The additional response header is lost in access logs which are
often the resource that is used for monitoring the status of the
server.
* Users do not read or understand the explanatory text well enough.
They see the well known 500 Internal Server Error status code and
feel they understand that this means there is a problem with the
server. Too often they proceed to filing support tickets against
the server operator, rather than against the developer responsible
for the hosted User Defined Resource. This wastes the user's,
server operators', and User Defined Resource developer's time and
resources.
We believe there is substantial value in assigning a new 5NN class
HTTP status code for this class of server error. It will be a very
clear signal to both tools and users that the error condition needs
to be handled in a distinctly different manner to how 500 Internal
Server Error conditions are handled.
Traditionally there has been some kind of direct relationship between
the author of server resources and the operator of the server. With
the rise of multi-tenant hosted platforms (such as 'serverless'
plaforms) increasingly there is no direct relationship between the
party hosting the User Defined Resource and the party that authored
Divilly Expires 27 September 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft User Defined Resource Error Status Code March 2020
the User Defined Resource, and thus it becomes appropriate to
distinguish at the HTTP status code level between these two classes
of error.
3. 5NN User Defined Resource Error
The 5NN (User Defined Resource Error) status code indicates that the
server encountered an unexpected condition when evaluating a User
Defined Resource that prevented the server from fulfilling the
request.
A 5NN response is not cacheable.
The response message MAY contain information that identifies the User
Defined Resource that originated the error. The response message
SHOULD contain additional information that can help the author of
User Defined Resource diagnose the root cause of the error.
The response SHOULD include an identifier that uniquely identifies
the error condition instance. This identifier should also appear
with any log messages or other diagnostic information that the server
produces.
The response MAY include a URI [RFC3986] that points to a resource
that the User Defined Resource author can use to review the log and
other diagnostic information associated with the error condition.
Access to this URI MUST be restricted to ensure only the User Defined
Resource author can access it.
It is RECOMMENDED that the server provide the User Defined Resource
author with secured access to the logs pertaining to the error
instance, and a capability to filter/search these logs keyed by the
error identifier.
The log information SHOULD provide detailed information about the
nature and origin of the error, to enable the User Defined Resource
author to diagnose the root cause of the error, whereas the error
response SHOULD contain the minimal information required to identify
the corresponding log messages.
3.1. Relationship to 500 Internal Server Error
The "5NN" status code can be considered a specialization of the "500"
status code. To quote the HTTP Specification
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6) [RFC7231]:
| HTTP status codes are extensible. HTTP clients are not required
| to understand the meaning of all registered status codes, though
Divilly Expires 27 September 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft User Defined Resource Error Status Code March 2020
| such understanding is obviously desirable. However, a client MUST
| understand the class of any status code, as indicated by the first
| digit, and treat an unrecognized status code as being equivalent
| to the x00 status code of that class
Thus clients SHOULD treat the "5NN" status code in the same manner as
they treat the "500" status code.
The primary value of the "5NN" status code is to enable efficient
routing of problem reports to the party best placed to remediate the
error condition.
In the case of a "5NN" status code the party best placed to remediate
the error condition is the author of the User Defined Resource.
In the case of a "500" status code the party best placed to remediate
the error condition is the server operator.
A 500 status is unexpected and likely requires a corrective action
from the server operators, as the error may indicate a threat to the
stability and availability of the server.
A 5NN status is likely to be commonplace, as User Defined Resource
authors will be expected to make mistakes when authoring those
resources. Assuming a well architected server with proper isolation
between the server and the User Defined Resources, such error
conditions are unlikely to be a threat to the stability and
availability of the server.
The ability to distinguish between 500 and 5NN status codes provides
a strong signal enabling both tools and humans to respond to the
appropriate party to remediate the error condition.
4. IANA Considerations
The HTTP Status Codes Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/
http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xhtml) should be updated with the
following entry:
* Code: 5NN
* Description: User Defined Resource Error
* Specification: [ this document ]
Divilly Expires 27 September 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft User Defined Resource Error Status Code March 2020
5. Security Considerations
When the server includes information that identifies the User Defined
Resource that caused the error, or additional information that helps
the author diagnose the root cause, care must be taken not to
disclose information that may be useful to an attacker.
Care needs to be taken to ensure that the log messages do not reveal
sensitive information about the users of the User Defined Resource,
see [RFC7230] section 9.8 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
rfc7230#section-9.8) for relevant guidance on this topic.
6. Example
This section is non-normative.
Below is an example response that leverages the Problem Details for
HTTP APIs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7807) syntax [RFC7807] to
communicate information about the error condition:
HTTP/1.1 5NN User Defined Resource Error
Content-Type: application/problem+json
Content-Language: en
{
"type": "https://example.com/errs/user-defined-resource-error",
"title": "User Defined Resource Error",
"detail": "An unexpected error condition occurred when
evaluating a user defined resource",
"trace_id": "a75382c4-d61d-4c16-8dde-a01afc7b51a2",
"instance": "/logs/?trace_id=a75382c4-d61d-4c16-8dde-a01afc7b51a2"
}
* The "detail" message is careful to reveal minimal information
about the User Defined Resource that experienced the error
condition.
* The "trace_id" field provides a unique identifier for the error
condition that can be used to correlate corresponding log entries
and other diagnostic information relevant to this error condition.
* The "instance" URI points to a (secured) resource that can be
interrogated to view all the log messages associated with this
specific error instance.
7. Normative References
Divilly Expires 27 September 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft User Defined Resource Error Status Code March 2020
[RFC7807] Nottingham, M. and E. Wilde, "Problem Details for HTTP
APIs", RFC 7807, DOI 10.17487/RFC7807, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7807>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
Author's Address
Colm Divilly
Oracle
Email: colm.divilly@oracle.com
Divilly Expires 27 September 2020 [Page 7]