Re: GET / DELETE request bodies

Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> Tue, 25 February 2020 09:17 UTC

Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 09:13:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j6WHc-0008V2-1K@lyra.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <D757AFEF-E2F6-4CD4-BE1F-DB82986458E2@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <D757AFEF-E2F6-4CD4-BE1F-DB82986458E2@gbiv.com>
From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 09:13:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAH_hAJH2s288J2gXux9mBmOP3GpKYb818=d6nbSkPmUKufpkbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::22c; envelope-from=cory@lukasa.co.uk; helo=mail-lj1-x22c.google.com
Subject: Re: GET / DELETE request bodies
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAH_hAJH2s288J2gXux9mBmOP3GpKYb818=d6nbSkPmUKufpkbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

Thanks Roy, this language seems like a reasonable compromise position.

Of course, I expect it to be roundly ignored given how many HTTP
implementations currently use bodies on these requests today, but it's
nice to try to define the correct thing even if it isn't widely done.
For my part: https://github.com/apple/swift-nio/issues/1414.

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 17:32, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

GET / DELETE request bodies Rob Sayre
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Cory Benfield
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Julian Reschke
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Roy T. Fielding
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Rob Sayre
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Roberto Polli
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Willy Tarreau
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Cory Benfield
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Roy T. Fielding
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Roy T. Fielding
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Cory Benfield
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Julian Reschke
Re: GET / DELETE request bodies Cory Benfield