- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:13:00 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 11/09/20 10:10 pm, Julian Reschke wrote: > Am 03.09.2020 um 06:52 schrieb Mark Nottingham: >> Everyone - >> >> From what I can see, we last talked about this draft at IETF93, in >> 2015. There, we considered issuing a Call for Adoption, but that >> didn't ever happen. >> >> I've seen continued interest in it from a variety of people (mostly >> outside the WG). >> >> What do people think about it -- is it worthwhile? Are there any >> problems? Consider this a prelude to a CfA... >> >> Cheers, >> ... > > I believe we should have a document that adresses the need of a safe > method with payload. > Looking through the draft for SEARCH it appears to me that the intended use makes responses to it effectively non-cacheable by default. The requirement not to invalidate previous responses does not help with that - just confuses things further. There is also the need for an Accept-Search mechanism to negotiate its use. If negotiation is needed, then are we perhapse better off instead negotiating the fact that GET payload is usable? Would a hop-by-hop header that allowed a server to inform a client how many bytes of GET payload it will accept can resolve these use cases? Amos
Received on Saturday, 12 September 2020 01:18:59 UTC