> POST requests by design are neither safe not idempotent.

Outright wrong. You are allowed to handle POST requests in a safe and idempotent way. In fact, the existing usage of POST to query, the literal impetus for this proposal, has exactly that behavior.

What you are not allowed to do is assume that any arbitrary POST request is safe and idempotent.

Only a endpoint that is documented to support POST and that is documented to be idempotent and safe should be sent a POST with request body and expect a response body and be idempotent and safe.

In comparison, only a endpoint that is documented to support QUERY (which implicitly is documented to be idempotent and safe) should be sent a QUERY with request body and expect a response body and be idempotent and safe.

Do you not see how similar those two are?

In fact, you could trivially make every endpoint that handles QUERY just do the same thing if it gets a POST. So why should the client have to care what request type it sends? Why make a new request type?

Of course we should want to define a standardized QUERY server endpoint behavior and document whether a server endpoint has QUERY behavior on POST; that is valuable, but that should be left distinct from the client protocol and constraints.

The only benefit I can see for the client to distinguish QUERY from POST is that it allows intermediate layers to know the request is expected to be idempotent and safe on the incoming edge. The outgoing edge is not benefitted because the server can easily tag things appropriately.

I guess a cache can use that information to only begin allocating a cache entry if the client attempts a QUERY thus saving it from tentatively recording all requests on the chance that the server will say that the actual request that occurred is safe? And that is assuming that the cache does not coordinate with the server to just pre-know what endpoints are safe and idempotent. In that case all the cache would need to do is parse the location to verify if it matches a safe endpoint. So your benefit of adding a new request type is you get to “unga-bunga is QUERY” instead of doing some parsing and matching overhead.

Seems like a weak benefit relative to the benefits of a simpler and more uniform client protocol.