Re: Proposed HTTP SEARCH method update

Confused. That was what I was proposing to do. Give you a profile that would serve as a use case to discuss. 

Phil

> On May 23, 2015, at 10:22, Appanasamy, Palanivelan <palanivelan.appanasamy@in.verizon.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks interesting. But, what exactly is the use case here. Thanks.
>  
> -Palanivelan
> DMTS-Engg, VerizonLabs
>  
> From: Phil Hunt [mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:41 PM
> To: Wenbo Zhu
> Cc: Julian Reschke; Roy T. Fielding; Zhong Yu; Philippe Mougin; James Snell; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed HTTP SEARCH method update
>  
> It might be useful for someone to profile the HTTP SEARCH draft to show a use case that people can see the trade-offs.
>  
> That way we can see an example of some details.
>  
> I think SEARCH is sufficiently defined in line with the template established by the other HTTP methods. Over defining at this level can cause more problems than good. 
>  
> I have something in mind if people are interested.
>  
> Phil
>  
> @independentid
> www.independentid.com
> phil.hunt@oracle.com
>  
> On May 22, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> wrote:
>  
>  
>  
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> On 2015-05-22 09:00, Wenbo Zhu wrote:
> ...
> Rather than seeing SEARCH as related to GET, maybe what we really need
> is just a safe/Idempotent POST (aka rpc). With reduced semantics the
> benefits of such a new method may become more obvious.
> ...
> 
> 
> And that new method would be different from SEARCH exactly how?
>  
> Anything that does not apply to POST could be dropped, i.e. not limiting this method to search-like semantics (which is not well-defined or understood, and often overlaps with GETs). 
>  
> And the method name needs a separate discussion ... and maybe SEARCH is good enough (not because it's already implemented).
>  
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>  
>