IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: How to express no matching results in HTTP SEARH method?

Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> Wed, 04 November 2020 15:15 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 66FF63A12CE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 07:15:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.747 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=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 1T1ZshJJ5Epx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 07:15:23 -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 32E9A3A12C8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 07:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kaKSw-00008y-03 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:12:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:12:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kaKSw-00008y-03@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 <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1kaKSu-00008L-W8 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:12:49 +0000
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <robipolli@gmail.com>) id 1kaKSt-0000ML-KL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:12:48 +0000
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id u21so11958769iol.12 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 07:12:47 -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=ZM3aeAY4P+xnpx8dkvQplH+M2uuJ+874rM+Z5AZQBb4=; b=cO7zQRKUoGxBPYeB97QFxPvyBuQrM7UqTBQuZKWm3z2aDJp/7qvRE6UH81mw3v6Lc5 XN3zWp/HCWGK/kW63S0juWpJhsfBPsL0e0NrksqyKTzYwe2puCkmTQ823USVug2SC3LU nD8IL08c5122zQTo7m681OpomQdh+SuCdM5VoOUYBjstAQ/mj/84QgQfFCqkTIMt17ag 2Wrom1OC/kbdVv+1cznghXKJApY/NIPBZvEkX1uJYYzGm7xmY6LMFGQmWfc5zswe3o54 OyU/tCOnN3zwXt70tKroo9wCNS8s86Bn+3htML4/6dh747LJWWK9/y9k8QgFxqSKgXmf P3nw==
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=ZM3aeAY4P+xnpx8dkvQplH+M2uuJ+874rM+Z5AZQBb4=; b=AXOifgfsG97JU/eKm8FKMUmgO/u9pVpptM9FzR5rldpmk2o5+6JbG3ZYC9+ENPpGlZ bSK6kET0to3Vxz40sq382lFi5AIKKPREL1betcNFP++ERd6/uxXDCBDC9LzwFKfCz9bx 4iEwwk7RmSRAPdRxOKM5xT4o7PLGyfSpqzh57pNyo1pwHgkWO6c2KVBL8m8S8Nv9fqBp rMv+nBXtz9ebzsziBvpsOXVBGsqgKWX6qsJ6AyUfji6HMyeXxtGV1BXeYvIELhO6Ag9i BbeQOrlBLByPzatx25fmKHI902m0e/VfwNExDQtGljA1xtBJE/G5BY2lMWyicc5o75KU GkAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532o11YoEfduWdIxsssedWta4eDIh96i7dnwZZ7Mm5NOIXksygj8 z2ERHO/7JYf5Hcf127M6v9lAdkji7lnAx6pHNLI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+wkgQOac+UjchSyhnvAs1A63RYpfxblxsrLhfTzj4OtyM3Az5kPaJzFrKcReETcqfgLDh4pNRDEDCX//KvaQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:150e:: with SMTP id b14mr19484051jat.82.1604502756343; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 07:12:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALOnmf-e24a=9ScKg3M==cSpG8TMd1JnMiecWgUMtD0a17xRgA@mail.gmail.com> <a599a2ba-ad97-b87d-6762-422cde1c1a41@gmx.de> <63989.1604496297@critter.freebsd.dk> <9a4f77e0-edc1-1813-a492-a19cd18410a2@gmx.de> <64090.1604498182@critter.freebsd.dk> <c34cc3ae-2ee0-3c7c-94c9-0dc4bce8e708@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <c34cc3ae-2ee0-3c7c-94c9-0dc4bce8e708@gmx.de>
From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 16:12:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAP9qbHXnoYWBw3DoiTbnd6=vOfHRUpSi8-j8fYno+f+mAvT-yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35; envelope-from=robipolli@gmail.com; helo=mail-io1-xd35.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_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kaKSt-0000ML-KL e2e02353a23d56d25f8afdef1cbdcabc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: How to express no matching results in HTTP SEARH method?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAP9qbHXnoYWBw3DoiTbnd6=vOfHRUpSi8-j8fYno+f+mAvT-yg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38155
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>

Hi Julian,

Il giorno mer 4 nov 2020 alle ore 15:22 Julian Reschke
<julian.reschke@gmx.de> ha scritto:
> ... we essentially want to define something that is
> the same as POST, with the additional property of being safe by
> definition. Nothing more specific than that.

Q:  POST is cacheable (under conditions). I was curious why SEARCH is
not cacheable: this can be useful...

R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email