Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 19 November 2020 06:09 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 D86123A0E51 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:09:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 Ai4c95GLzB1C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:09:50 -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 CF7043A0E4A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kfd6E-0005Yb-92 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:07:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:07:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kfd6E-0005Yb-92@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1kfd6D-0005Xq-Ao for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:07:17 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1kfd6B-0007in-Bj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:07:17 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1605766017; bh=cfaXMhtUN/M2qUYG2QlJoNhHGRG28n1acikLwcDi3Fc=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=TfmobLWeT7voN/TtFvZqtcVQDah0tm97K4MnmujaLzGUdW5/2T/GC9Ny6Ry1Cm4RL nJltZN4jA8GEjCI9ANHAdTiU6kcclE0j/CLiHOwnuirFjNpuRwgAfNs6CcOL9oRAH7 p7QQ5uSW837J5rwGTKzSdJ+lYiQa/o6+CIR0mKR0=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.182] ([84.171.157.31]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M9Fjb-1kZsCk1JWJ-006Niq for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:06:57 +0100
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <F0556EC2-D5AD-47FF-A780-15949F57A911@mnot.net> <5C86F8CE-3075-48C7-BFA0-B7E202225829@acm.org> <CABP7RbeA8mj=sQhRFx6cUnnGES9=fogy=94nWwWkuQDj2NBNfA@mail.gmail.com> <CACcvr=mvavjLEX740zZp__yGpDv6sA9P-=psGns2uY-=mRK2DQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <2f282629-3413-6b24-6e68-a724acea9aa5@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:06:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACcvr=mvavjLEX740zZp__yGpDv6sA9P-=psGns2uY-=mRK2DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:dIQdOFDLNon7gkOU/u1NICxsqXXuh1JoLLIFtLwhzXsqFKxargh IoCEihsMmN2jyhCKRIUap5jnWy46p82TbjoecNwLrvfaYgt6BkzL+7s+FE4FK1gLVLEg1V0 yME9itdJvEBAnKsjlzuiJr6OfLp2IVGmtR8B/30GhfWNagENky23MXBplbV6RJW17pdpqV8 2cNKR7iaui30DDtl4xUSw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Y1KIed2WryI=:p7RKqwF4p/2E2VpLuT99Cu 9EbyPRftmBQNN5QOs86fTMb8SZn55KRdiV+sKHFghAFZHsPBW8YjdfNLwQ8AzsuLmnR4lGa7a rnPNvBRODY1ElYjWJhhWpyoomDPr8YP7pRxd/myl7CDSKD56HxwB7GupYkMyOBcoLgv4cDLE9 D7PO5vImhOTbKnXSeKMSXMjMwjR8718hq0NDHeWjkdToJF1Tfcn/5YPjVx+E3OVMWn92w5vPN sfY5PjoZrINkmrv5duBnadQm76CjXQn+7NFZpt2UNP+6vTLzxPFbCdOZkAJrD1RFT8UwmBPWt fe9vm4YJLlhQNq5L1xzo04+Rhj29fbpiYo8oZtBpkHCJUFkDAx51RGQC8Guwgq0W9op/RJZru NNb1QZGzjI4yxBSn2Yk/LjGcYVXMcOkz7ZiNfYzVDGEp1+PAPLprETmaLJlFdpjFH9HTiCPar h0O94rNeshKSg5vWvCN9rqCYp9MIHcxsJg301q69Xmhmxhc1gpMtpjXjfBknmuZONg5kH82RF fvd2zyRmPBBm0eRMY0ZBVySnUfn+BUkAruuOOlLtOMNR1uq7T7D8x/MJOGsxpZRRmtydZs9Yv lajm2RDhyrOvk2W+uVFhVrP8UJXCRFmMPvA4uSRdlvqKgyevT4qjUHsq+fq9V7xAbjJagXR4i PQueu6gsN9nrpnnuTziDH4nsl+2ntf2iKHkBBmDATlS+KxA6IUa97YriVH6Os0XLdJ5TNUzZm GENuLSzOmDpI/kCh3dBGKIfqaOV89Z8hW8LBqBsEgyKF5OORO48M0VYRFHuYpHcsNFZbjY8Iq N0GL6iNJQUgdT7u4vvbx6F94GReGTDCTR2UrEXxXJvEnjv86NHplecyYQVV9AErLYEDsn72Ng E9CanGwFEnLBsWLXRH6g==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kfd6B-0007in-Bj 465143995f64cc70ecd4a2e28ac31f3e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/2f282629-3413-6b24-6e68-a724acea9aa5@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38239
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>

Am 19.11.2020 um 06:42 schrieb Nick Harper:
> ...
> When this draft was presented at the October interim, it was presented
> in the context of solving the problem of providing a safe (and
> idempotent) HTTP method that has a request body, i.e. a safe POST or a
> GET with a body. That problem (i.e. specifying such an HTTP method) is
 > ...

Yes, that was the intention.

> what I'm interested in solving, not bringing WebDAV's SEARCH semantics
> to HTTP.
>
> A question for the working group: in this Call for Adoption, are we
> considering adopting a general-purpose method that is safe and has a
> request body, or are we considering adopting work on the specific
> search/query semantics that this draft intends to cover?

The draft is not supposed to cover any *specific* search semantics; that
would be done by specific payload formats. (That said, we may want to
talk about form encoded payloads...)

> If the former, I support that goal, and this draft could be a starting
> point. If the latter, I do not support adopting this draft. It also
> appears that the draft does not succeed in meeting that goal. The draft
> includes a list of 4 bullet points in the introduction of problems using
> the GET method. The first two points concern the semantics, but they are
> not solved by the SEARCH method presented in the draft. The last two

#1 is:

"Without specific knowledge of the resource and server to which the GET
request is being sent, there is no way for the client to know that a
search operation is being requested. Identical requests sent to two
different servers can implement entirely different semantics."

I'm not sure whether this is a problem at all, and if it is, wether it
is fixable with a new method. At the end of the day, it's always up to
the server to do what it wants. What we can do is describe the intent of
the request.

#2 is:

"Encoding query parameters directly into the request URI effectively
casts every possible combination of query inputs as distinct resources.
For instance, because mechanisms such as HTTP caching handle request
URIs as opaque character sequences, queries such as
'http://example.org/?q=foo' and 'http://example.org/?q=Foo' will be
treated as entirely separate resources even if they yield identical
results."

That is solved my moving the "query" into the payload; but then, the
normalization question just applies to a different part of the request.

> ...

Best regards, Julian