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

Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

From: Nick Harper <ietf@nharper.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 21:42:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CACcvr=mvavjLEX740zZp__yGpDv6sA9P-=psGns2uY-=mRK2DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:43 PM James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 12:18 Philippe Mougin <pmougin@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I don't support adoption because:
>>
>>
>> - The introduction provides an inaccurate and self contradictory
>> description of GET, as detailed in this message:
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020JulSep/0198.html
>>
>>
>> - The name of the method appears too restrictive, as a safe and
>> idempotent equivalent to POST, which is what the draft essentially defines,
>> would be useful beyond search operations.
>>
>>
> To be clear, this is not intended as a safe, idempotent equivalent to
> POST. It is intended specifically to cover search/query operations which
> are often ambiguously represented as GET or POST. I'm not quite sure what a
> safe idempotent equivalent to POST would even be, but this is not it.
>

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 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?

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 points are
addressed by the SEARCH method, but they are not specific to search/query
semantics and would be solved just as well by a general-purpose method.

>
>
>
>> I would support the adoption if the introduction was amended and the
>> draft was extended beyond providing a SEARCH method to something more
>> generic, such as, for instance, a COMPUTE method.
>>
>
> This can be discussed later once the draft is adopted but I'd be a strong
> -1 on COMPUTE as a viable method name here.
>
>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Philippe Mougin
>>
>> Le 4 nov. 2020 à 02:10, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> a écrit :
>>
>> As discussed in the October 202 Interim, this is a Call for Adoption
>> for the HTTP SEARCH method draft:
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-search-method-02
>>
>> Please indicate whether you support adoption in response to this e-mail;
>> information about intent to implement (or use) it is also useful.
>>
>> The Call for Adoption will end on 18 November 2020.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark and Tommy
>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2020 05:42:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 19 November 2020 05:42:50 UTC