Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-search-method-02.txt

[Amos Jeffries <[e-mail]>]

On 11/09/20 10:10 pm, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Am 03.09.2020 um 06:52 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
>> Everyone -
>>
>>  From what I can see, we last talked about this draft at IETF93, in
>> 2015. There, we considered issuing a Call for Adoption, but that
>> didn't ever happen.
>>
>> I've seen continued interest in it from a variety of people (mostly
>> outside the WG).
>>
>> What do people think about it -- is it worthwhile? Are there any
>> problems? Consider this a prelude to a CfA...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ...
> 
> I believe we should have a document that adresses the need of a safe
> method with payload.
> 


Looking through the draft for SEARCH it appears to me that the intended
use makes responses to it effectively non-cacheable by default. The
requirement not to invalidate previous responses does not help with that
- just confuses things further.

There is also the need for an Accept-Search mechanism to negotiate its
use. If negotiation is needed, then are we perhapse better off instead
negotiating the fact that GET payload is usable?


Would a hop-by-hop header that allowed a server to inform a client how
many bytes of GET payload it will accept can resolve these use cases?

Amos