Including a strong motivating example might have helped sell this, using an example that could trivially be expressed as a GET is extremely distracting.

Even imagining a QUERY with a large JSON filtering structure, or say an image input as request body, it feels extremely odd to include the request body as part of the cache key. It also implies an unbounded and user-controlled cache key, with the only really meaningful general caching strategy being bitwise compare of the request body (or a hash), which in a hostile scenario implies cache busting would be trivial.

This invokes multiple semantic oddities in one go with obvious difficulties for a very niche use case. If I'm writing a service that needs complex filtering or complex input like an image, any form of caching (e.g. individual data columns of a join, or embeddings keyed by perceptual hashes of a decoded image input) is going to be far away from the HTTP layer and certainly unrelated to the exact bit representation of the request on the wire.

Why even bother trying to capture this in a generic way?

I would be far more inclined to try and capture this caching semantic as a new header for POST. Something like "Vary: request-body" or similar. Perfectly backwards compatible and perfectly ignorable for all but the 0.1% of CDN use cases where the behaviour might turn out useful

I wonder if HTML forms will add support for QUERY:

    <form action="..." method="query">

This would avoid the annoying re-submission warnings you're getting if you refresh a page that was returned by a POST form submission, since QUERY is required to be idempotent.

I know agents are out of scope of this RFC but I love that this could easily be extended to make the JS EventSource to work on streaming AI queries.

Due to the need of bodies in requests, everyone uses POST and streaming results often use the text/event-stream protocol for responses. But this is technically a bad fit because no state is actually changing and because EventSource can only use GET for some obstinate reason. So many APIs reimplement the functionality with their own parser

Just in case anyone wants to pretend it's still that other century:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10008.txt

> GET request with a body was heavily considered by the IETF working group, but it was ultimately rejected in favor of creating the new QUERY method. The decision to create a distinct method came down to historical interoperability issues and strict compliance with the core architectural definitions of HTTP.

I've been sending request body along GET method for years now

Aside: Wow, we’ve hit 5-digit RFC numbers now!

> GET: Content (body) "no defined semantics"

I thought it wouldn't be a terrible idea to open up the GET method to contain a body but according to the original spec the GET body is to be ignored completely. There's also caching which would break because the important bit of the request would live in the stripped body.

Why not standardize a body in the GET request (which isn't forbidden per spec and works in many places already but isn't supported everywhere because it's not mandated to support it)?

Wait, it's already past 10 thousand?

If this is actually going to replace GET requests w/ query strings in the wild, Im very much hoping for browser bookmarks to support keeping request parameters.

Use the QUERY method in your http query to query search results. Do not add query parameters.

I think the name is confusing because the term 'query' is already used to refer to http requests in general.

Just the title of the RFC confused me.

As "just a guy that programs" (ok, now guides agents to program) and tries to follow the rules (with a big dose of pragmatism), this totally makes sense to me. This is also the first time I've seen or heard about this coming.

I like that we now have a way to not being forced to define Resources when we want to query. It always felt like I was missing something that there could be an infinite, defined-on-the-fly number of Resources for a "part" of a given Resource. Do I really want to define "all cats that sleep more than 20 hours a day and like sunbeams and want to eat breakfast at 3 am" as a Resource? (ok, we all know that is actually the full set of cats). I'm ok that you want to define that as a Resource but in my system, it makes more sense that Cats is the Resource and I just need some accepted way to query.

I like the implementation (again, as just a guy that programs). I don't see how it could have done it better or simpler which probably hides the complexity of getting there.

I also especially appreciate how the spec is written. Opening a spec, I wonder how far I'll get before I don't know what the heck they're talking about (and, again, as just a guy that programs). I don't think it's easy to write a spec that is complete and approachable like this. Really appreciate that.

This makes me happy tbh, I was never a fan of creating `POST /search` endpoints when working with robust APIs

This whole thing is non sense. It basically mixes technical constraints (body or not body) with a functional requirement that arises from people that are tied to semantics of the protocol.

HTTP is transfer protocol. It should not ever imply anything at the business level.

Yes REST made it's worst mistake out if it by giving a meaning to the verb.

Yes proxies rule how the body is re-interpreted in spite of the will of the sender (wtf).

But the original RFC states clearly that any verb can be used. This is how WebDav normalised its own.

But playing fancy by introducing a change that all HTTP implementation will have to honor is a very bad and irrational choice.

Wow, it still isn’t a standard? I’ve been building with the QUERY method for years now.

I’ve enjoyed the combination with Range headers for paging, despite this tidbit:

> It is expected that these built-in features will be used instead of HTTP Range Requests

Using the QUERY request as the definition of a set, and Range to retrieve subsets seems very natural.

It's about time.

Why not just define the semantics of a GET request body?

Wouldn’t just putting an etag on POST requests accomplish the same thing? If I’m understanding it the server has to maintain state to ensure idempotency.

Why does this feel like GraphQL demanding everyone else solve their problems?

It's as bookmarkable as a query with its parameters in the POST data...

Kinda pointless since traffic is encrypted. If you can terminate TLS you can apply any rule based on the content as well. Like headers which is more reliable.

Just allow body for get. Problem solved.

query strings always had size limit, seems this new type will solve it which will be really good.

I don't hate it. Covers all the bases: 1.1, 2, 3/quic and solves real problems: get query limitations vs body content & post-without-mutation. Yes there are preexisting workarounds, but they're non-obvious.

QUERY has existed in spirit for nearly two decades as WebDAV's SEARCH method https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5323 and the thing that always killed it in practice was intermediaries. Plenty of proxies, WAFs, and load balancers either strip the body from methods they do not recognize or reject the request outright, so the guarantee that sending a body is safe evaporates the moment traffic crosses a middlebox you do not control. Until gateway and CDN support is real rather than just on paper, POST with a header marking the body as part of the cache key stays the pragmatic choice.