W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: How to express no matching results in HTTP SEARH method?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:36:19 +0100
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <9a4f77e0-edc1-1813-a492-a19cd18410a2@gmx.de>
Am 04.11.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Poul-Henning Kamp:
> --------
> Julian Reschke writes:
>> Am 04.11.2020 um 03:40 schrieb Sawood Alam:
>
>>> cases. Also, 204 is a success response, which means a client might
>>> repeat the request, while a 4xx response would suggest that there is no
>>> point in repeating the request without making changes to it.
>>
>> If the request target exists, and accepts and processes the query, the
>> response ought to be a 2xx, no?
>
> Any librarian will tell you that "Found" is much simpler than
> "Not found", which has a lot of possible semantics:
>
> 	Not found, though it should have been.
>
> 	Not found, and will never be found.
>
> 	Not found, but will certainly be found sometime in the future [($time)].
>
> 	Not found, and cannot possibly be found until ($time)
>
> 	Not found here, but try asking ($uri, [$query_params])
>
> 	Not even looking, you have been asking too many queries recently
>
> 	Not telling, (temporary/permanent/authorization needed)
>
> 	Found, but you cant have it (temporary/permanent/authorization needed)
>
> 	...
>
> It might be a good idea to hash out a couple of general mechanisms
> in the spec, to provide mechanisms for traffic/load-engineering,
> at the very least something like "Dont-repeat-this-SEARCH: <seconds>" ?

That's all very interesting, but why is this relevant now, but not for
existing uses of POST we want to replace?

(also: <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc6585.html#status-429>)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2020 13:36:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 4 November 2020 13:36:44 UTC