draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-01.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-latest.txt 
HTTP Working Group J. Reschke HTTP Working Group J. Reschke
Internet-Draft greenbytes Internet-Draft greenbytes
Updates: 5323 (if approved) A. Malhotra Intended status: Standards Track A. Malhotra
Intended status: Standards Track Expires: April 23, 2022
Expires: December 10, 2021 J.M. Snell J.M. Snell
June 8, 2021 October 20, 2021
HTTP SEARCH Method The HTTP QUERY Method
draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-01 draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-latest
Abstract Abstract
This specification updates the definition and semantics of the HTTP This specification defines a new HTTP method, QUERY, as a safe,
SEARCH request method originally defined by RFC 5323. idempotent request method that can carry request content.
Editorial Note Editorial Note
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group
mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>. <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
Working Group information can be found at <https://httpwg.org/>; Working Group information can be found at <https://httpwg.org/>;
source code and issues list for this draft can be found at source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/safe-method- <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/safe-method-
w-body>. w-body>.
The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.1. The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix A.2.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. SEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. QUERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The "Accept-Search" Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. The "Accept-Query" Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Simple SEARCH with a Direct Response . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Simple SEARCH with indirect response (303 See Other) . . 6 4.1. Simple QUERY with a Direct Response . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Simple QUERY with indirect response (303 See Other) . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-00 . . . . . 8 A.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-00 . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-01 . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This specification updates the HTTP SEARCH method originally defined This specification defines the HTTP QUERY request method as a means
in [RFC5323]. of making a safe, idempotent request that contains content.
Many existing HTTP-based applications use the HTTP GET and POST
methods in various ways to implement the functionality provided by
SEARCH.
Using a GET request with some combination of query parameters
included within the request URI (as illustrated in the example below)
is arguably the most common mechanism for implementing search in web
applications. With this approach, implementations are required to
parse the request URI into distinct path (everything before the '?')
and query elements (everything after the '?'). The path identifies
the resource processing the query (in this case 'http://example.org/
feed') while the query identifies the specific parameters of the
search operation.
A typical use of HTTP GET for requesting a search Most often, this is desirable when the data conveyed in a request is
too voluminous to be encoded into the request's URI. For example,
while this is an common and interoperable query:
GET /feed?q=foo&limit=10&sort=-published HTTP/1.1 GET /feed?q=foo&limit=10&sort=-published HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org Host: example.org
if the query parameters extend to several kilobytes or more of data
it may not be, because many implementations place limits on their
size. Often these limits are not known or discoverable ahead of
time, because a request can pass through many uncoordinated systems.
Additionally, expressing some data in the target URI is inefficient,
because it needs to be encoded to be a valid URI.
While there are definite advantages to using GET requests in this Encoding query parameters directly into the request URI also
manner, the disadvantages should not be overlooked. Specifically: effectively casts every possible combination of query inputs as
distinct resources. Depending on the application, that may not be
o Without specific knowledge of the resource and server to which the desirable.
GET request is being sent, there is no way for the client to know
that a search operation is being requested. Identical requests
sent to two different servers can implement entirely different
semantics.
o Encoding query parameters directly into the request URI
effectively casts every possible combination of query inputs as
distinct resources. For instance, because mechanisms such as HTTP
caching handle request URIs as opaque character sequences, queries
such as 'http://example.org/?q=foo' and
'http://example.org/?q=Foo' will be treated as entirely separate
resources even if they yield identical results.
o While most modern browser and server implementations allow for
long request URIs, there is no standardized minimum or maximum
length for URIs in general. Many resource constrained devices
enforce strict limits on the maximum number of characters that can
be included in a URI. Such limits can prove impractical for large
or complex query parameters.
o Query expressions included within a request URI must either be
restricted to relatively simple key value pairs or encoded such
that the query can be safely represented in the limited character-
set allowed by URL standards. Such encoding can add significant
complexity, introduce bugs, or otherwise reduce the overall
visibility of the query being requested.
As an alternative to using GET, many implementations make use of the As an alternative to using GET, many implementations make use of the
HTTP POST method to perform queries, as illustrated in the example HTTP POST method to perform queries, as illustrated in the example
below. In this case, the input parameters to the search operation below. In this case, the input parameters to the search operation
are passed along within the request payload as opposed to using the are passed along within the request payload as opposed to using the
request URI. request URI.
A typical use of HTTP POST for requesting a search A typical use of HTTP POST for requesting a search
POST /feed HTTP/1.1 POST /feed HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org Host: example.org
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
q=foo&limit=10&sort=-published q=foo&limit=10&sort=-published
This variation, however, suffers from the same basic limitation as This variation, however, suffers from the same basic limitation as
GET in that it is not readily apparent -- absent specific knowledge GET in that it is not readily apparent -- absent specific knowledge
of the resource and server to which the request is being sent -- that of the resource and server to which the request is being sent -- that
a search operation is what is being requested. Web applications use a safe, idempotent query is being performed.
the POST method for a wide variety of uses including the creation or
modification of existing resources. Sending the request above to a
different server, or even repeatedly sending the request to the same
server could have dramatically different effects.
The SEARCH method provides a solution that spans the gap between the The QUERY method provides a solution that spans the gap between the
use of GET and POST. As with POST, the input to the query operation use of GET and POST. As with POST, the input to the query operation
is passed along within the payload of the request rather than as part is passed along within the payload of the request rather than as part
of the request URI. Unlike POST, however the semantics of the SEARCH of the request URI. Unlike POST, however, the method is explicitly
method are specifically defined. safe and idempotent, allowing functions like caching and automatic
retries to operate.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. SEARCH 2. QUERY
The SEARCH method is used to initiate a server-side search. Unlike The QUERY method is used to initiate a server-side query. Unlike the
the HTTP GET method, which requests that a server return a HTTP GET method, which requests that a server return a representation
representation of the resource identified by the target URI (as of the resource identified by the target URI (as defined by
defined by Section 7.1 of [RFCHTTP]), the SEARCH method is used to Section 7.1 of [RFCHTTP]), the QUERY method is used to ask the server
ask the server to perform a query operation (described by the request to perform a query operation (described by the request payload) over
payload) over some set of data scoped to the effective request URI. some set of data scoped to the effective request URI. The payload
The payload returned in response to a SEARCH cannot be assumed to be returned in response to a QUERY cannot be assumed to be a
a representation of the resource identified by the effective request representation of the resource identified by the effective request
URI. URI.
The body payload of the request defines the query. Implementations The body payload of the request defines the query. Implementations
MAY use a request body of any content type with the SEARCH method; MAY use a request body of any content type with the QUERY method,
however, for backwards compatibility with existing WebDAV provided that it has appropriate query semantics.
implementations, SEARCH requests that use the text/xml or
application/xml media types with a root element (Section 2.1 of
[XML]) in the "DAV:" XML namespace ([XMLNS]) MUST be processed per
the requirements established by [RFC5323].
SEARCH requests are both safe and idempotent with regards to the QUERY requests are both safe and idempotent with regards to the
resource identified by the request URI. That is, SEARCH requests do resource identified by the request URI. That is, QUERY requests do
not alter the state of the targeted resource. However, while not alter the state of the targeted resource. However, while
processing a search request, a server can be expected to allocate processing a QUERY request, a server can be expected to allocate
computing and memory resources or even create additional HTTP computing and memory resources or even create additional HTTP
resources through which the response can be retrieved. resources through which the response can be retrieved.
A successful response to a SEARCH request is expected to provide some A successful response to a QUERY request is expected to provide some
indication as to the final disposition of the search operation. For indication as to the final disposition of the operation. For
instance, a successful search that yields no results can be instance, a successful query that yields no results can be
represented by a 204 No Content response. If the response includes a represented by a 204 No Content response. If the response includes
content, it is expected to describe the results of the search content, it is expected to describe the results of the operation. In
operation. In some cases, the server may choose to respond some cases, the server may choose to respond indirectly to the QUERY
indirectly to the SEARCH request by returning a 3xx Redirection with request by returning a 3xx Redirection with a Location header field
a Location header field specifying an alternate Request URI from specifying an alternate Request URI from which the results can be
which the search results can be retrieved using an HTTP GET request. retrieved using an HTTP GET request. Various non-normative examples
Various non-normative examples of successful SEARCH responses are of successful QUERY responses are illustrated in Section 4.
illustrated in Section 4.
The response to a SEARCH request is not cacheable. It ought to be
noted, however, that because SEARCH requests are safe and idempotent,
responses to a SEARCH MUST NOT invalidate previously cached responses
to other requests directed at the same effective request URI.
// By default, that is. We need to figure out under which conditions
// we can make the result cacheable.
The semantics of the SEARCH method change to a "conditional SEARCH" The semantics of the QUERY method change to a "conditional QUERY" if
if the request message includes an If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified- the request message includes an If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified-
Since, If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header field ([RFCHTTP], Since, If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header field ([RFCHTTP],
Section 13). A conditional SEARCH requests that the query be Section 13). A conditional QUERY requests that the query be
performed only under the circumstances described by the conditional performed only under the circumstances described by the conditional
header field(s). It is important to note, however, that such header field(s). It is important to note, however, that such
conditions are evaluated against the state of the target resource conditions are evaluated against the state of the target resource
itself as opposed to the collected results of the search operation. itself as opposed to the collected results of the search operation.
3. The "Accept-Search" Header Field 2.1. Caching
The "Accept-Search" response header field MAY be used by a server to The response to a QUERY method is cacheable; a cache MAY use it to
directly signal support for the SEARCH method while identifying the satisfy subsequent QUERY requests as per Section 4 of
specific query format media types that may be used. [HTTP-CACHING]).
Accept-Search = 1#media-type The cache key for a query (see Section 2 of [HTTP-CACHING]) MUST
incorporate the request content. When doing so, caches SHOULD first
normalize request content to remove semantically insignificant
differences, thereby improving cache efficiency, by:
The Accept-Search header field specifies a comma-separated listing of o Removing content encoding(s)
o Normalizing based upon knowledge of format conventions, as
indicated by the any media type suffix in the request's Content-
Type field (e.g., "+json")
o Normalizing based upon knowledge of the semantics of the content
itself, as indicated by the request's Content-Type field.
Note that any such normalization is performed solely for the purpose
of generating a cache key; it does not change the request itself.
3. The "Accept-Query" Header Field
The "Accept-Query" response header field MAY be used by a server to
directly signal support for the QUERY method while identifying the
specific query format media type(s) that may be used.
Accept-Query = 1#media-type
The Accept-Query header field specifies a comma-separated listing of
media types (with optional parameters) as defined by Section 8.3.1 of media types (with optional parameters) as defined by Section 8.3.1 of
[RFCHTTP]. [RFCHTTP].
The order of types listed by the Accept-Search header field is The order of types listed by the Accept-Query header field is
insignificant. insignificant.
4. Examples 4. Examples
The non-normative examples in this section make use of a simple, The non-normative examples in this section make use of a simple,
hypothetical plain-text based query syntax based on SQL with results hypothetical plain-text based query syntax based on SQL with results
returned as comma-separated values. This is done for illustration returned as comma-separated values. This is done for illustration
purposes only. Implementations are free to use any format they wish purposes only. Implementations are free to use any format they wish
on both the request and response. on both the request and response.
4.1. Simple SEARCH with a Direct Response 4.1. Simple QUERY with a Direct Response
A simple query with a direct response: A simple query with a direct response:
SEARCH /contacts HTTP/1.1 QUERY /contacts HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org Host: example.org
Content-Type: example/query Content-Type: example/query
Accept: text/csv Accept: text/csv
select surname, givenname, email limit 10 select surname, givenname, email limit 10
Response: Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/csv Content-Type: text/csv
surname, givenname, email surname, givenname, email
Smith, John, john.smith@example.org Smith, John, john.smith@example.org
Jones, Sally, sally.jones@example.com Jones, Sally, sally.jones@example.com
Dubois, Camille, camille.dubois@example.net Dubois, Camille, camille.dubois@example.net
4.2. Simple SEARCH with indirect response (303 See Other) 4.2. Simple QUERY with indirect response (303 See Other)
A simple query with an Indirect Response (303 See Other): A simple query with an Indirect Response (303 See Other):
SEARCH /contacts HTTP/1.1 QUERY /contacts HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org Host: example.org
Content-Type: example/query Content-Type: example/query
Accept: text/csv Accept: text/csv
select surname, givenname, email limit 10 select surname, givenname, email limit 10
Response: Response:
HTTP/1.1 303 See Other HTTP/1.1 303 See Other
Location: http://example.org/contacts/query123 Location: http://example.org/contacts/query123
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
Host: example.org Host: example.org
Content-Type: example/query Content-Type: example/query
Accept: text/csv Accept: text/csv
select surname, givenname, email limit 10 select surname, givenname, email limit 10
Response: Response:
HTTP/1.1 303 See Other HTTP/1.1 303 See Other
Location: http://example.org/contacts/query123 Location: http://example.org/contacts/query123
Fetch Query Response: Fetch Query Response:
GET /contacts/query123 HTTP/1.1 GET /contacts/query123 HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org Host: example.org
Response: Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/csv Content-Type: text/csv
surname, givenname, email surname, givenname, email
Smith, John, john.smith@example.org Smith, John, john.smith@example.org
Jones, Sally, sally.jones@example.com Jones, Sally, sally.jones@example.com
Dubois, Camille, camille.dubois@example.net Dubois, Camille, camille.dubois@example.net
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
The SEARCH method is subject to the same general security The QUERY method is subject to the same general security
considerations as all HTTP methods as described in [RFCHTTP]. considerations as all HTTP methods as described in [RFCHTTP].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the registration of the SEARCH method in IANA is requested to add QUERY method in the permanent registry at
the permanent registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http- <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-methods> (see Section 16.1.1 of
methods> (see Section 16.1.1 of [RFCHTTP]). [RFCHTTP]).
+-------------+------+------------+---------------+ +-------------+------+------------+---------------+
| Method Name | Safe | Idempotent | Specification | | Method Name | Safe | Idempotent | Specification |
+-------------+------+------------+---------------+ +-------------+------+------------+---------------+
| SEARCH | Yes | Yes | Section 2 | | QUERY | Yes | Yes | Section 2 |
+-------------+------+------------+---------------+ +-------------+------+------------+---------------+
Table 1 Table 1
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[HTTP-CACHING]
Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-19, September 10, 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
cache-19>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5323] Reschke, J., Ed., Reddy, S., Davis, J., and A. Babich,
"Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
SEARCH", RFC 5323, DOI 10.17487/RFC5323, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5323>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFCHTTP] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, [RFCHTTP] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-16, May 27, 2021, draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19, September 10, 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
semantics-16>. semantics-19>.
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xml-20081126, November
26, 2008, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.
Latest version available at <https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/>.
[XMLNS] Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H.
Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", W3C
Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208, December 8, 2009,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/>.
Latest version available at <https://www.w3.org/TR/xml-
names/>.
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
// (see https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/622) // (see https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/622)
A.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-00 A.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-00
o Use "example/query" media type instead of undefined "text/query" o Use "example/query" media type instead of undefined "text/query"
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 8, line 28
o Reference RFC 8174 and markup bcp14 terms o Reference RFC 8174 and markup bcp14 terms
(<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1497>) (<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1497>)
o Update HTTP reference (<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/ o Update HTTP reference (<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/
issues/1524>) issues/1524>)
o Relax restriction of generic XML media type in request body o Relax restriction of generic XML media type in request body
(<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1535>) (<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1535>)
A.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body-01
o Add minimal description of cacheability
(<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1552>)
o Use "QUERY" as method name (<https://github.com/httpwg/http-
extensions/issues/1614>)
o Update HTTP reference (<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/
issues/1669>)
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Julian Reschke Julian Reschke
greenbytes GmbH greenbytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16 Hafenweg 16
48155 Münster 48155 Münster
Germany Germany
Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
URI: https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/ URI: https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
147 lines changed or deleted 127 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/