IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: GET / DELETE request bodies

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Mon, 24 February 2020 17:36 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 37B943A0F4F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:36:36 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gbiv.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 QWrbG-dqkbAA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:36:34 -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 78C583A0F4D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:36:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1j6Hbb-0008WD-1L for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:33:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:33:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j6Hbb-0008WD-1L@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1j6HbT-0008IC-48 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:33:11 +0000
Received: from bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net ([23.83.212.17]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1j6HbR-0002TI-Db for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:33:10 +0000
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E68A219B0; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:32:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a59.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-215-16.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.215.16]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A57A4205CF; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:32:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a59.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:32:56 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Unite-Battle: 3c34a9603a41f549_1582565576104_257012329
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1582565576104:3033723910
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1582565576104
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a59.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a59.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4474C7F13D; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:32:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=gbiv.com; bh=sQhg/1u0ZGUW2WwuddvYYRF1f1Y=; b= nWHWhwHjIp7yetvp8luTO8ghULmUpiKdVrA79F9rRAa8vdPTbBezaUTrohanDLUV OCoMx20N+GEMcRx4lDT2q0NNmwUg3O3/hsLCAoLhUzSF6xaKmCaO5UGU90z/HgHX i3LqkMBDIt4CJY6yKvKYe8Wg35r7Y2CNp/YdGYHEVCQ=
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (ip68-228-81-25.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.81.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a59.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BCCB7F153; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:32:51 -0800 (PST)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a59
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <D757AFEF-E2F6-4CD4-BE1F-DB82986458E2@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1794AF3F-3C12-4F7C-A220-E7182E623D28"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:32:49 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAH_hAJFF-o_iPzU-DxvjC2YafgTnep1xCW9pnsiRvuLncjWD0g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
References: <CAChr6SyZN4ceSeHkfQVnKRX7=RPnKjX_vAsL1mTHs18-MKRphQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_hAJEdM+NeVKAwEC+8uQf_0Dv-ArEtetuSoOW3wcV9WMeMZw@mail.gmail.com> <22665322-3F2B-4B2A-AE8F-91A53DE75B9E@gbiv.com> <CAH_hAJFF-o_iPzU-DxvjC2YafgTnep1xCW9pnsiRvuLncjWD0g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrledtgddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffktgggufffjgfvfhfosegrtdhmrehhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpedftfhohicuvfdrucfhihgvlhguihhnghdfuceofhhivghlughinhhgsehgsghivhdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhenucfkphepieekrddvvdekrdekuddrvdehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurdegngdpihhnvghtpeeikedrvddvkedrkedurddvhedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthhepfdftohihucfvrdcuhfhivghlughinhhgfdcuoehfihgvlhguihhnghesghgsihhvrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehfihgvlhguihhnghesghgsihhvrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehivghtfhdqhhhtthhpqdifghesfiefrdhorhhg
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=23.83.212.17; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1j6HbR-0002TI-Db 343c77ad6eb2614f8485da880837e574
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: GET / DELETE request bodies
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/D757AFEF-E2F6-4CD4-BE1F-DB82986458E2@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37381
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>

> On Feb 24, 2020, at 8:19 AM, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> wrote:
> But your forceful response on this seems to be out of line with the
> highly equivocal language in the RFC. It would have cost nothing for
> the RFC, instead of saying "A payload within a GET request has no
> defined semantics", to say "A payload in a GET request MUST be
> ignored". This doesn't forbid sending it, just forbids doing anything
> with it, and seems closer to your intent.

We tried that and people chose to interpret "ignored" as "do not parse".

> Are you open to considering a work item for the next round of drafts
> to consider adding normative language that matches your position on
> request bodies?

There are closed issues for GET and DELETE:

  https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/202

  https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/258

which were merged for the next drafts:

  https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/pull/300/files

If that language is still not enough, then we can reopen them on review.

....Roy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email