IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com> Thu, 19 November 2020 07:01 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 DCEC73A1067 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:01:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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=webcomposite-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 1YXWYEUdGC90 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:01:08 -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 A32093A1065 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kfdtm-000892-Jt for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:58:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:58:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kfdtm-000892-Jt@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 <jim@webcomposite.com>) id 1kfdtl-00088H-0c for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:58:29 +0000
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <jim@webcomposite.com>) id 1kfdti-0006P8-TT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:58:28 +0000
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id x18so4374966ilq.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:58:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=webcomposite-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Np09O1hoNFnAECfto1tXwDgieuwPrTvcVtlooFQZHos=; b=o5wjGi6uZvrdYyO+ldZpLJInSEhh7zyil5W18TABFofHJcDcJTb6k4sO0Kjqc/qlwL xoHvTtkWNj6gh6f9uSaxAcYxdbJ9U2xIF9sZz+2vPxi/6M2dqXtWlC+xvGe6OO6gqrGs +TKTw+UYKiSI0q2BNRjuRfgiZ18GsQV+vDkX8fxMUCkCh3bge5IclOaW1fVK8wbRCYuY //cUGZv1EDA+/qH72gpciVozl/7xBYtIZpHqDe0AD5DV49PqySadCPUFASCrNkS3XU9O c6hvcyqh3BRpe9bMUsRLFE7i3DYBoJC3SDFQhmhYKlipXkgGwYAG0ssX5WXm/RlrJkpV CYMQ==
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=Np09O1hoNFnAECfto1tXwDgieuwPrTvcVtlooFQZHos=; b=IOQM3FjNjoAcKvXPEWN1aC40cPtkj/lOBWOHZJLIO9xj5EynYvPhTckbVLgMuPszci f1cUP8ltpEf/KFn2jIE2DzYsPc5x6a6GS6eVGRFd2nGOxHvBf3xaiH2IPJEBy0S2mwfX hhVYgfEGekY2ZnvX/aRsOm+mtRfc/g8vNi0g0evjMTdLSUHGiuZ9WDkFGeZRLDMZAh4g z6ttxJXIWYg5YIuOEgOAdkM1pyTkqNM3qMzpKbz6neypvHV3dPQcUORgBgPf0pFQkqLW stzdAtzeZrxhb+IVg/ceQdAdIKekLJ2TxioTA0EzG1fyBD/VC6c8e3VYIbAqPiid3du4 uW+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jkUumGpaqFcNvJoX7ouDuKAHXQ+gy9Abo8/Mas6fxWK38OacB PVNG+OPe0tSfo7jG92h5VCPd2MZiqiRyL0bwwl6hxQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyG5I1o+tfZiqGvTtUnoeovkdNFCISjg035MPo+4379y4Pgezzw6DSqwWnpLy2UkXiLg2kM27petqGBsG9NQ8c=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c112:: with SMTP id p18mr13143947ile.220.1605769095530; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:58:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F0556EC2-D5AD-47FF-A780-15949F57A911@mnot.net> <5C86F8CE-3075-48C7-BFA0-B7E202225829@acm.org> <CABP7RbeA8mj=sQhRFx6cUnnGES9=fogy=94nWwWkuQDj2NBNfA@mail.gmail.com> <00838246-acb5-6ad3-5864-9cce8521d9ca@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <00838246-acb5-6ad3-5864-9cce8521d9ca@gmx.de>
From: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:58:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEaz5ms6SE-zSTp2W6GNqfNAOugVfm5VVoEAexo5wiLk3+7wog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTTPbis WG (IETF)" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::133; envelope-from=jim@webcomposite.com; helo=mail-il1-x133.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kfdti-0006P8-TT b922a24002c1ccf8452214b16ec4208c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAEaz5ms6SE-zSTp2W6GNqfNAOugVfm5VVoEAexo5wiLk3+7wog@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38243
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>

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 05:49, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Am 19.11.2020 um 04:39 schrieb James M Snell:

> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 12:18 Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org
> > <mailto:pmougin@acm.org>> wrote:

> > To be clear, this is not intended as a safe, idempotent equivalent to
> > POST. It is intended specifically to cover search/query operations which
> > are often ambiguously represented as GET or POST. I'm not quite sure
> > what a safe idempotent equivalent to POST would even be, but this is not
> > it.
> > ...
>
> FWIW, I disagree with that. Ignore the method name for a moment, and
> what's left is a retrieval operation similar to GET which additionally
> takes the request payload into account.

and I disagree with both of you ;) ... +1 for taking on the draft for
discussion.

it would help clarify what exactly s being proposed, as the potential
for developer
confusion is high (because we all know what SEARCH must mean, right ?).

Some of the answers of the following questions interest me for those
future discussions;

* does SEARCH naturally assume working on collection of resources (uri's) ?

* how to generically report errors on a single resource within
returned results (ex. does 207 multi-status apply ?)

* if we are not constraining result format (or content type eg. return
a text/uri-list) then what is different from a
GET with some meta data saying 'this is a search' ? There are a few
slippery slopes here and esp hard mapping
HTTP semantics over many different things generically (eg. file
systems, databases, higher order ex., SPARQL, etc etc etc)
w/o cgi-bin devolution.

The above further reinforces my unease of direct linkage to WEBDAV ...
but should be an interesting conversation.

James Fuller

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email