IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Fri, 06 November 2020 20:51 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 831893A0CFA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 12:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pxgB1Pnu2iZk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 12:51:23 -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 2B9BA3A0CF8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 12:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kb8f8-0007ON-C6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 20:48:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 20:48:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kb8f8-0007ON-C6@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 <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1kb8f6-0007Nc-Ai for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 20:48:44 +0000
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1kb8f4-0007we-W0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 20:48:44 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id e27so3732630lfn.7 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 12:48:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=E982A4dO6p/lmq7dxL85Ft2lt/lJssfHC450ozuPxcw=; b=XGz7+j3G0VuoOGyXFm0RXMD2YvqTwT2llxDWYmJPJuP5RIauBpRiUkEEQEj27y3wrg e69UFbwZ+qh2bM+Lsc8Va4IMNxaWZ4hIYOWjDdOheWKHG1v9VjKB5zGDptrSbFkY+WZP hCIV1sjdJpv5U5Czhfxm/NRI/4KaAacU0+76QAN/fzfK7lcZIyEoxQ0RRhgiNa1KnGMY 8l9x0syc8W7DpGQkuFNUPBhOfGpbCjJ62X+Vy0h8kTJiF50IeVgx6Yq6Q04nxcryq801 DpqidC4qpByBdLfM8xdQ6zZDA3t18Wh8fY8Z3ekA70KPv7bLyiuSLfEdPQgwodXWcnCo CYqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E982A4dO6p/lmq7dxL85Ft2lt/lJssfHC450ozuPxcw=; b=Cu6+tkrTn1Eya64eOnF0HoaaxHcriT/5EMgDxVu18xqkka0iodQoEbilSZmr+yqeC5 a+TQg8JpRXrhLbz15oKh9IiGUSiGRJCXm2/wCFTUA+0I4SBgbbU0JMr06GvbsgMI+prf D/miv2NK2utxN/yT3uBlVvZ/YObaZqS+WyiNsWTOBZnBWCISZDJM5k5xwEB75WRGV91b uj676HrtQQYuh90rKvniP3wCbE23k2ZRrEXrtqqZETOca7hJERTfQou20RwT2LqLjdvI rSjL0FfuqTHWQEmyQidWtaYp5iObknaRR96auwKKin+zxMlt+NGk1oG4fEFTbsevOr4P xgcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WDGbW8x5GR2AeOT4Pl+sNoAaXYIEltNclchfu4bopmeGqrXCI pysJyXIhyi3ktFYmrksmdM7gwGZwrTEo28GnFQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy0d3acdCGvzHo6y3P1dASbwztpQs2y/CcDbh8IxXA1rM2JWMCyFSVWfbmg/RbLhO8LRsfptG/BgdN2G8VjVM0=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:519a:: with SMTP id u26mr1644440lfi.73.1604695711318; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 12:48:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BN3PR00MB00836EFFA09F8E564E923A5CE8EF1@BN3PR00MB0083.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR00MB00836EFFA09F8E564E923A5CE8EF1@BN3PR00MB0083.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 12:48:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbe18spVLQTS+JdgmcM-FcyGHkWVpg4AK_a+p05i7iQznQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Block <Glenn.Block@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::133; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-lf1-x133.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kb8f4-0007we-W0 8d2f52f26b39c5229bad30102be5fdf6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbe18spVLQTS+JdgmcM-FcyGHkWVpg4AK_a+p05i7iQznQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38195
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>

Yes, essentially. The caching restriction applies only to HTTP
intermediaries and exists largely because existing intermediaries have
no existing way of caching based on the body of the request.
Applications, however, can cache however they see fit.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 8:34 AM Glenn Block <Glenn.Block@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Looking again over the spec, I see that it specifically states in section 2 the response is NOT cacheable:
>
>  The response to a SEARCH request is not cacheable.  It ought to be
>    noted, however, that because SEARCH requests are safe and idempotent,
>    responses to a SEARCH MUST NOT invalidate previously cached responses
>    to other requests directed at the same effective request URI.
>
>
> Right after that, the draft states it supports conditional SEARCH, IF-Match etc.
>
> Am I correct that this means that a server can return an ETAG with a response, and the client can technically cache that along with the ETAG and use the ETAG in a subsequent conditional SEARCH?
>
> Glenn Block (he/him/his) | M365 Core Ecosystem | @gblock | Principal PM Lead | Schedule with me!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email