On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:33 AM Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: >> Alternatively, would it make sense to define a new HTTP verb, e.g., “FETCH”, >> for this? > > I'm inclined not to do this. We definitely shouldn't actually mint a new > HTTP method, since we're not changing the method.
One does not merely define a new verb. The limited set of verbs in HTTP is a feature, not a bug. That means occasionally using POST in ways that are suboptimal, but the alternative is struggling with an unrecognized verb. There is a proposal to add something with similar semantics to what you describe, in SEARCH [1], but that has not been successful and it's been a long time. Don't kill ACME on this mountain. Use POST and learn to like it. (Arguably, header fields are the way to deal with this class of problem, but then we're into request signing territory and ACME decided a long time ago not to tilt at that particular windmill.) [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-search-method-00 - which died only partly because it conflicted with RFC 5323... _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
