Fwiw, SEARCH did not progress because of a perceived lack of interest from a much broader group. If there's definite interest in that type of mechanism, I'm happy to revise and continue working on it. On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 18:48 Guilherme Hermeto <gui.hermeto@gmail.com> wrote: > I would definitely like to see that, but I think we can go even further > and have a FETCH method, as the one described in CoAP ( > https://core-wg.github.io/etch/#intro-fetch). The CoAP FETCH method was > based on the SEARCH proposal from J. Snell ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-search-method-00), but would be > broader, addressing the issue that SEARCH would be too specific. > > Thoughts? > > > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I just noticed Mark opened [GET >> w/body](https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/546), which >> reminds me again of draft-snell-search-method. It came up for me back >> in January, but then other things got in the way. >> >> Do you think there's still a strong motivation to get a >> general-purpose `SEARCH` RFC published? Is it something the WG would >> be interested in taking on? >> >> Cheers >> -- >> Matthew Kerwin >> https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/ >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2018 05:45:44 UTC