Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SEARCH method #943

Closed
asbjornu opened this issue Oct 1, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

SEARCH method #943

asbjornu opened this issue Oct 1, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@asbjornu
Copy link

asbjornu commented Oct 1, 2019

As requested by @reschke in httpwg/http-core#250, I'm creating an issue for the specification of the SEARCH method as an alternative to POST, making search requests safe, idempotent and cacheable.

As discussed in the HTTP Workshop in May, GET requests with a body is in use by large vendors such as Elasticsearch (see elastic/elasticsearch#16024) and their interpretation of the spec being that this is "just fine" (see elastic/elasticsearch-php#737 (comment)). Language is hopefully being added to the spec that makes this not seem "just fine" anymore, but I think we also need to provide a solution to the specific problem of not wanting to jam JSON into a URL to be able to use the GET keyword.

While POST with the header defined in #942 would help, POST is still an unsafe method that poorly reflects the safe, idempotent semantics of search-like operations. I therefore argue that a a SEARCH method is needed to have a safe, idempotent method with explicit caching support, in opposition to POST which explicitly is not cacheable.

The current draft for SEARCH is written by @jasnell, but I hope he would be willing to hand over the spec to someone else.

@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure that an issue is the right way to track this, because this would be a substantial new addition to a draft that's not actually supposed to define anything new. I would think the right venue for this is reviving the draft and/or writing a new one that succeeds it, then taking it to the working group for potential adoption.

@jasnell
Copy link

jasnell commented Oct 9, 2019

Absolutely willing to hand it over! Would love to see this move forward, just don't have any time to move it forward myself.

@asbjornu
Copy link
Author

@MikeBishop, this issue got a reply from both you and @jasnell, so I'd say its creation is an absolute success so far! 🎉 😄 I agree it needs proper stewardship, though, so now that James has agreed to hand it over, we "just" need someone who knows how to write an I-D to take it and to do exactly as you suggest and revive/rewrite the draft.

@mitar
Copy link

mitar commented Jul 16, 2020

I think SEARCH is to specific. What about FETCH or RETRIEVE?

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Aug 11, 2020

See httpwg/admin#2.

@mnot mnot closed this as completed Aug 11, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants