IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 04 November 2020 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193BB3A13C0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:13:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=VRNXeezK; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Ep0ZrufI
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a20QVtivcvpn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 601113A13BE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kaA8Q-0005GI-CS for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 04:10:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 04:10:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kaA8Q-0005GI-CS@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1kaA8O-0005FW-LL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 04:10:56 +0000
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1kaA8M-00018h-JV for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 04:10:56 +0000
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37045C019D; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 23:10:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Nov 2020 23:10:41 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=p T2FIYRSz2ASs/KnlTU1IWuMn6oqw0WAOztpIGKTta0=; b=VRNXeezKzfu4I6UGU fKFT3/g2EivSGs2lI0uIGsDS0igxDNLOdyESF7DQSq2ymhkDk4fTt4a/84vusNRq fi9nLWoEQMzyMsZZc1XbBkSO0cCv4NAGdUOcqxD9aSCgrzfB3xvP4JvIysker07W GSyk/0/H3l2rii2wRcMjoWyLDvmzFjlbIH64QFnAgW8VIYLWwAmbGSBLYgVt1kZW 7N+vl2OItbBEhuAf+bbVU2wscas598ekORDtec11qwzLUitJaQCZJMZKu0S86KAt hcZ1TIGR29Z4SYvPyteXP2Yj8Bn//+frttagMIJs593Y7INi2N8Lls4QgefwwM4x E1esw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=pT2FIYRSz2ASs/KnlTU1IWuMn6oqw0WAOztpIGKTt a0=; b=Ep0ZrufIu5r7W9ye521H1WvDM2UEFjuzv8tf/Ml9S/z6vfhIQ5Ykqz3RR zbeR+yc9B/No1PckFIM3eCT8O89fFIFNamZrvG2iXlU3AkJhYy/fC2q3XqCJk8FB RoMWuA5R8X0iG/Yd+/JIyLN7fRa87ZZSR9oiTDX9byrlPEd2hBtwHRlKASGPsQrx dg6g6f5EAaDGUwUwZa4xsWBoIgnW5AWDxzwA+lGtWz1x3DEG+fjm1N9dX9gf4yVf OLpqDMvKE2qOVZyjtHvfge7vGXilIlEYICpKHUwneFmhEfwgD6P5jWesr2O2qwRp vB5Ivz/Q8/4lnq839odDfET34smIA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wCmiX3UeGkOqAgfvmMPSKQF0SH9PH90ivbHuj-VEAL2dN6zwCKr4xw> <xme:wCmiX_kxTttrz-eGUp0YxNcwBDm8viC2YHNTQMpcds0g8nHNFogdcKOVuZ3TRUyx1 4iFFIwbsqlI3prRSg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedruddtgedgieehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeevffffhfduteevvefhueffieegtdeutdehffeltefffedttdeggeejheeiueet teenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrddujedrudehkedrvd ehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehm nhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wCmiXzZVHZiH-9fEp4_3fwfNtxl7XIWvRbJYNe1stT7ZB3wc_L96Bg> <xmx:wCmiXyU4t8UXlXdzwNXRVbpGdV1WtggGad8_Et3xZB5DFm_fHb34yw> <xmx:wCmiXxnq09-G394jRDXRzrG96MFGyg-wuodA3GcuOtjZfmhZq37z7w> <xmx:wSmiX3hsbt8vcYpltb1WDf0ymuIUN6hwRBBzV3xjEBL2rBBjQuxW4w>
Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 643C13064682; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 23:10:39 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20201104033532.GB20345@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:10:35 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B93C83C-13D7-49EE-810C-B450A7AB359B@mnot.net>
References: <F0556EC2-D5AD-47FF-A780-15949F57A911@mnot.net> <20201104033532.GB20345@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.25; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kaA8M-00018h-JV 7d4400aec03f6b8ebf193b36258b53ec
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/9B93C83C-13D7-49EE-810C-B450A7AB359B@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38141
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hey Willy,

Just responding to one bit from my perspective:

> On 4 Nov 2020, at 2:35 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> non-cacheability of the
> method: what if a cache doesn't recognize the method and caches by
> default?).

I don't see any evidence of caches doing that (I quickly checked all of the caches covered by cache-tests.fyi). While new methods aren't introduced that often, I don't think caches behave like that, because there are so many uncacheable methods, and they get blamed for caching things incorrectly.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email