IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Thu, 05 November 2020 17:22 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 5794A3A1934 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:22:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 vkEC6xDUPl6x for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:22:10 -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 779683A1933 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kaiO9-0007Kv-Ia for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:45:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:45:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kaiO9-0007Kv-Ia@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 <bemasc@google.com>) id 1kaiO7-0007KA-US for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:45:28 +0000
Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <bemasc@google.com>) id 1kaiO5-0003wm-9N for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:45:26 +0000
Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id p10so1962425ile.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:45:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bw6qpBfY2gkPNWk/Mm+Tgy2Zdo1d7gCOkaogS9J7vOQ=; b=amyXhX42dZTu9tAV1E1KfujFTWDHvjKf50V0VAmJyDJcETd2Bj6OKr0KbmpY+9UNNn 6vp+KT5VG7ipHsOrEbMVaoBAD6JQMVZTzxcI8jkbvKIR3Cw3PDOYz1K5W2qsWMhb9qvU fHoP/VXfzJMbeZ18f7jvbbJYY4rWPXDvHuutLzXIzM/Fte+eWuL+XtO5E5Y1fizohhbl uUDFSb2jwu6cWqJHQrkBGY44xtVtpYR2F3/Cd+6QAnlAkta8072ZT+WhTqbkp4NcrSfR 1jXWFow21yQSmoMrY9MUwmOImBgTxaN1uYL6MeKm7A83YdSid2cKrKjV5t2ULmq9k1P4 F7ag==
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=bw6qpBfY2gkPNWk/Mm+Tgy2Zdo1d7gCOkaogS9J7vOQ=; b=E8Civ77C+K58DUOhLctJnV45F5OHprol5S9n1Tix8XKFXwAcaOozOXJ4AypDnSxq7s 9mtkALoFJ32xTw0HzEUoopAJP57PV41fqANk5JKZJOn0fJJrjDDcVFmasAKiOk3NJJZQ 4z1TDNXWakOEiCDvH+ssvgvLoNWtxsA8eolkPkfekMdtzGsM2wnh00dh4yvcORgIsbr2 I7YGr6gkrBLOiKn8MCu6s8Yt4tVfdXXdiDffABDy1gZOB13hwPA+a64iSnG8SAYZ+/P6 9zT91kT0r99YmZnP6CZPDrHvBhoiexVCgF5gHNzbJ3OQm+xL2FGzhdt9W0sYm9FBySN3 fl4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WAZi7yVc3PZcA2ZdHg6fgehAjMx1ss5pU/OybdFwpTCNGON13 3BFzCd1H6+qAmK3/Pll5lmVY3A2CCI6NK0ne/Smm6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWHr3dwaRnsSyhDzRKJmOcIYESJ+ZDG/95TDCOolUyCHPHEQXpa+eDMpctF1I/M6G/8ahu2aJVdiHpkekf7NA=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:b741:: with SMTP id c1mr2425204ilm.44.1604594713918; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:45:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F0556EC2-D5AD-47FF-A780-15949F57A911@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <F0556EC2-D5AD-47FF-A780-15949F57A911@mnot.net>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 11:45:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsBKLC6Yuf_jauAwdRh_7Ds3Q8KAMCDTJ3VC8BPxRz-wSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="000000000000f4efd205b35ed124"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a; envelope-from=bemasc@google.com; helo=mail-il1-x12a.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kaiO5-0003wm-9N 8810b690d14736d27286b7efe557b67e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAHbrMsBKLC6Yuf_jauAwdRh_7Ds3Q8KAMCDTJ3VC8BPxRz-wSg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38180
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>

The draft says "The response to a SEARCH request is not cacheable.".  Why
is that?  Semantically, it seems that caching keyed by the request body
should behave correctly.

RFC 7234 says "it is also possible to cache ... responses to methods other
than GET if the method's definition allows such caching and defines
something suitable for use as a cache key.".

Without support for caching, I don't have any reason to prefer this method
over POST.  With support for caching, this would have been very useful in
DoH.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:10 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> As discussed in the October 202 Interim, this is a Call for Adoption for
> the HTTP SEARCH method draft:
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-search-method-02
>
> Please indicate whether you support adoption in response to this e-mail;
> information about intent to implement (or use) it is also useful.
>
> The Call for Adoption will end on 18 November 2020.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark and Tommy
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email