IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Fri, 06 November 2020 23:35 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 C81CF3A0DED for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:35:15 -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 PLdTjAS_mwrj for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:35:12 -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 E87B23A0E44 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kbBDh-000391-70 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 23:32:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 23:32:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kbBDh-000391-70@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 1kbBDe-000387-W8 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 23:32:35 +0000
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <bemasc@google.com>) id 1kbBDc-0002iq-Fc for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 23:32:34 +0000
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id o11so3188697ioo.11 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 15:32:31 -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=qjMBKayfUDLPg8bgmnwwjChJHLhsO7waT7QBCZpUow4=; b=aa+ZYQgrDEcDcKFitlcPKuzekLQCrUPtqDvAT/g2tEJGZW+cYxoB8XoEIA/W6sIjGW 38nkIfJlquhKVeMuujoZVGy+G9SXUrO71JNDMpquheDwosJK1Q/PRSkWW9OjPJeaDACS K+wJLbFNc8NZL7p2yooc8BxCZiwnWGadtYBebycaT91BQ8inhfCKwp1Z3mSi4cvLid6B LvwlaW4ee8WVGz4ij4g/YKzwoy+jki2L/o7+s+27vq17Id325zudqdIN+HPTpZIqwE5S BQ+18dQqJAlkX+4a2D3suP6KANgQKCglobXswtpm+KsFMb9HO3RP3kRCdcPSMtbfFzzX 5mog==
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=qjMBKayfUDLPg8bgmnwwjChJHLhsO7waT7QBCZpUow4=; b=evSBJUmps8L/ucDxZFvFwBLA+4HIj/t+OCEgps31GoZ0Z7ntUTq3GS945qh+zcM1BL uvNX8D3YUUgM/PnqeKC2iM+95rcAN7WlNWgPeSim1y8AgayOtjQi1JUkFZFmDXALsntc hHUBfDkW/1n9lAcGU4qg5PoAc5rYr4md6t//xsslxy7+5ESCht10fEAmXZz9S02dvUY+ 1R0Qr05njEEymraGmdVy9cpXEOEGClEejwGw3lLFAFszGM/4Fcatd/LJKbaTHHf05WBp tCHth02yEfvbVxAAAhBW/V5mEs+MowemMOfil7yWMTfQPjxXjCC0TKfL16/HhaAlo8kH h+rQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533G5ncUza/6hq8HZc8yTFoe5qao6H0/CWCX29z6/Vs7iJ7n7wB7 dy3AaMiFd3UsObv6LeuHGzZZXgT06fnxNi0g6s4W5Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyvlZf4ZDjgL1qLzXbU6zCL4SMcbZyJwwBPf/7USXxgWJxxa+5E/2kcfd5rDgr6EJFdfa7FLxTiBljWaCrYUg=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:a793:: with SMTP id e19mr3580777jaj.45.1604705540989; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 15:32:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BN3PR00MB00836EFFA09F8E564E923A5CE8EF1@BN3PR00MB0083.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CABP7Rbe18spVLQTS+JdgmcM-FcyGHkWVpg4AK_a+p05i7iQznQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsCDkq7ZQESd=GxNg_p5MKXU=YVd2aGWPiPWwmRpBhJuuA@mail.gmail.com> <34F73C71-1AEC-40C2-A930-A797DB619057@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <34F73C71-1AEC-40C2-A930-A797DB619057@mnot.net>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 18:32:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsD4kQA3pAbCntMMsXeMrHSfT5K3ODoT6XofV2JzAVnUZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Glenn Block <Glenn.Block@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="000000000000c450e805b3789f97"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36; envelope-from=bemasc@google.com; helo=mail-io1-xd36.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 1kbBDc-0002iq-Fc 4451e0a4d1e08a2f1171c7b1eec1259f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAHbrMsD4kQA3pAbCntMMsXeMrHSfT5K3ODoT6XofV2JzAVnUZg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38198
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>

To clarify an earlier message: I would support adoption if the response is
made cacheable (useful new capability), and oppose otherwise (redundant
with POST).

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 6:23 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> On 7 Nov 2020, at 8:02 am, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > James, according to RFC 7234 Section 3:
> >    A cache MUST NOT store a response to any request, unless:
> >    o  The request method is understood by the cache and defined as being
> >       cacheable
> >
> > I think it follows that you do not need to declare this method
> non-cacheable; you can declare it cacheable when keyed by exact match on
> the body.  Existing intermediaries will not cache it anyway, since they do
> not understand the method.
>
> I'm hoping we can do better than that. E.g., the request media type can
> define how it can be canonicalised into input for the cache key.. Or a
> response header might describe how to do it, a la Variant.
>
> But that's getting ahead of the CfA...
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email