ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2007 by author

Adrien de Croy

• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Saturday, 8 September)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Thursday, 9 August)
• Re: revised I-D draft-decroy-http-progress-01 (Wednesday, 8 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems (Monday, 6 August)
• revised I-D draft-decroy-http-progress-01 (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems (Friday, 3 August)

Alexey Melnikov

• Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Sunday, 9 September)
• Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Saturday, 8 September)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Wednesday, 5 September)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Wednesday, 5 September)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Monday, 27 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Monday, 27 August)
• [Fwd: Nomcom 2007-8: Please nominate candidates for IESG and IAB positions (Deadline: Sep 10, 2007)] (Saturday, 25 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: Revised charter proposal (Saturday, 11 August)
• HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Saturday, 11 August)
• HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Saturday, 11 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: Draft minutes from HTTPBis BOF (Friday, 3 August)
• Draft minutes from HTTPBis BOF (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: BoF Summary (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: status registry missing code 506 (Monday, 16 July)
• Draft agenda for the HTTPBis BOF (Monday, 9 July)
• Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis (Monday, 2 July)
• Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis (Monday, 2 July)

Andreas Sewe

• Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft (Thursday, 5 July)
• Some comments on the PATCH draft (Tuesday, 3 July)

Anne van Kesteren

• Re: Fwd: (XMLHttpRequest 2) Third proposal for cross-site extensions to XMLHttpRequest (Thursday, 6 September)
• Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header (Monday, 3 September)

Anthony Bryan

• Re: Metalink: higher availability and self repairing downloads (Wednesday, 8 August)
• Metalink: higher availability and self repairing downloads (Friday, 6 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Wednesday, 4 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Babu.N

• Re: Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems (Friday, 3 August)

babun@intoto.com

• Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems (Thursday, 26 July)
• [ietf-http-wg] <none> (Thursday, 26 July)

Bernard Aboba

• Re: [saag] [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Saturday, 8 September)

Bill Manning

• Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Sunday, 9 September)

Bjoern Hoehrmann

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Wednesday, 25 July)

Clive D.W. Feather

• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)

Cyrus Daboo

• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)

Dave Kristol

• Re: Draft minutes from HTTPBis BOF (Wednesday, 1 August)

David Morris

• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Thursday, 9 August)
• Re: Fodder for security issues document (was: dns binding) (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Wednesday, 4 July)

Debbie Garside

• RE: Next step on web phishingdraft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)
• RE: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)

der Mouse

• Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Wednesday, 12 September)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)

Edward Lee

• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Wednesday, 11 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 10 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 10 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)
• Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Monday, 2 July)

Eric Lawrence

• RE: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• RE: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)
• RE: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)
• RE: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Eric Rescorla

• Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Saturday, 8 September)

Hallam-Baker, Phillip

• RE: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Monday, 10 September)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand

• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Revised charter proposal (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Saturday, 21 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Friday, 20 July)

Henrik Nordstrom

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Coding vs ETags (Sunday, 30 September)
• Re: range header query (Friday, 28 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Monday, 10 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Wednesday, 5 September)
• RE: Custom Ranges (Saturday, 1 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Thursday, 30 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Wednesday, 29 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Wednesday, 29 August)
• RE: thinking about etags (Monday, 27 August)
• Re: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code? (Wednesday, 22 August)
• Re: thinking about etags (Wednesday, 22 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Wednesday, 22 August)
• Re: WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Wednesday, 22 August)
• Re: Trailers and intermediaries (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Saturday, 11 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Thursday, 9 August)
• Re: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Thursday, 9 August)
• New issue: 15.3 misguided? (Thursday, 9 August)
• RE: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 6 August)
• New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: Fodder for security issues document (was: dns binding) (Monday, 6 August)
• New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: Fodder for security issues document (was: dns binding) (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft (Wednesday, 4 July)
• Re: RFC2616 vs RFC2617, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis (Monday, 2 July)

Hugo Haas

• Re: WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Friday, 17 August)
• WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Thursday, 26 July)

Iljitsch van Beijnum

• Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Sunday, 9 September)

James M Snell

• [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-snell-http-prefer-00.txt] (Tuesday, 18 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Thursday, 30 August)
• [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Wednesday, 22 August)
• Re: Warnings (Monday, 20 August)
• Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Wednesday, 8 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 25 July)
• [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: PATCH draft (Monday, 16 July)
• PATCH draft (Thursday, 12 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Wednesday, 4 July)

Jamie Lokier

• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Saturday, 11 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Thursday, 9 August)
• Re: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Thursday, 9 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Thursday, 9 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)

Jeffrey Hutzelman

• Re: [saag] [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Monday, 10 September)

Jeffrey Mogul

• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Wednesday, 8 August)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Monday, 2 July)

John C Klensin

• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)

John Leslie

• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Monday, 27 August)

Joris Dobbelsteen

• RE: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Julian Reschke

• NEW ISSUE: Content-Coding vs ETags (Sunday, 30 September)
• Re: new issue: remove redundant MUST obey xrefs (Saturday, 29 September)
• NEW ISSUE: normative references (Saturday, 15 September)
• Re: Revised charter proposal (Saturday, 15 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Thursday, 6 September)
• Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header (Tuesday, 4 September)
• Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header (Tuesday, 4 September)
• Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header (Monday, 3 September)
• NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header (Sunday, 2 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Tuesday, 28 August)
• Re: thinking about etags (Monday, 27 August)
• Re: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code? (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Definition of "variant" and "requested variant", was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Saturday, 18 August)
• Re: Definition of "variant" and "requested variant", was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Saturday, 18 August)
• Definition of "variant" and "requested variant", was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Friday, 17 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Friday, 17 August)
• Re: WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Friday, 17 August)
• Re: WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Friday, 17 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Sunday, 12 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: revised I-D draft-decroy-http-progress-01 (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Saturday, 4 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: Draft minutes from HTTPBis BOF (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: Revised charter proposal (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Wednesday, 25 July)
• NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 (Saturday, 21 July)
• status registry missing code 506 (Saturday, 14 July)
• NEW ISSUE: clarify "requested variant" (Friday, 13 July)
• NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 (Friday, 13 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Friday, 6 July)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.txt (Wednesday, 4 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Wednesday, 4 July)

Justin Erenkrantz

• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 8 August)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: example for matching functions, was: Weak and strong ETags (Tuesday, 17 July)

Keith Moore

• Re: Next step on web phishingdraft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)
• Re: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)
• Re: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Tuesday, 28 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG? (Tuesday, 28 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Tuesday, 21 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter forhttp-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)

Kornel Lesinski

• Custom Ranges (Friday, 24 August)

Larry Masinter

• RE: Custom Ranges (Friday, 31 August)
• HTTPBis scope: cookies & TLS (Friday, 31 August)
• thinking about etags (Saturday, 18 August)
• RE: Revised charter proposal (Friday, 27 July)
• RE: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Leif Johansson

• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Friday, 10 August)

Lisa Dusseault

• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: Draft minutes from HTTPBis BOF (Friday, 3 August)
• Fodder for security issues document (was: dns binding) (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Wednesday, 4 July)

Marcelo Schmidt

• Re: Revised charter proposal (Friday, 27 July)

Mark Baker

• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Friday, 10 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: PATCH draft (Monday, 16 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: PATCH Draft (Wednesday, 4 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Mark Nottingham

• Status, Vancouver (Saturday, 29 September)
• Revised charter proposal (Thursday, 13 September)
• Re: (XMLHttpRequest 2) Third proposal for cross-site extensions to XMLHttpRequest (Thursday, 6 September)
• Fwd: (XMLHttpRequest 2) Third proposal for cross-site extensions to XMLHttpRequest (Thursday, 6 September)
• Fwd: update "Authoritative Metadata"/ contentTypeOverride-24 based on HTML 5 spec? (Wednesday, 5 September)
• Re: NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header (Tuesday, 4 September)
• Fwd: [Fwd: Less drafty: RFC 2617 for OAuth] (Friday, 31 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Conneg for media types [was: HTTP Information Request] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Monday, 20 August)
• Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: 305 Use Proxy deprecated? (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: HTTP version numbers returned by proxies (Monday, 20 August)
• Warnings (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Message delimiting security issues (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Friday, 17 August)
• Trailers and intermediaries (Monday, 13 August)
• Revised charter proposal (Thursday, 26 July)
• BoF Summary (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: Draft agenda for the HTTPBis BOF (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: example for matching functions, was: Weak and strong ETags (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: clarify "requested variant" (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Wednesday, 11 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Marshall Eubanks

• Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Sunday, 9 September)

Martin Duerst

• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter forhttp-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)

Mike Dierken

• RE: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code? (Friday, 24 August)
• Re: Regarding dynamic ip addressed for HTTP Servers. (Sunday, 1 July)

Ned Freed

• Re: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)
• RE: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)

Nicolas Williams

• Required doc sections (Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)) (Tuesday, 11 September)

Paul Leach

• RE: [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Monday, 10 September)

Paul Marquess

• RE: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Friday, 17 August)
• RE: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Wednesday, 8 August)
• RE: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Clarification of the term "deflate" (Tuesday, 7 August)

Robert Brewer

• RE: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Tuesday, 21 August)
• RE: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Tuesday, 21 August)
• RE: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Monday, 20 August)
• RE: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Saturday, 18 August)
• RE: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Saturday, 18 August)
• RE: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Friday, 17 August)

Roy T. Fielding

• new issue: remove redundant MUST obey xrefs (Friday, 28 September)
• Fwd: semantic error in RFC 2616 (Saturday, 8 September)
• Re: thinking about etags (Saturday, 18 August)
• Re: Definition of "variant" and "requested variant", was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Saturday, 18 August)
• Re: Definition of "variant" and "requested variant", was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Saturday, 18 August)
• Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations (Monday, 13 August)
• Re: Clarification of the term "deflate" (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry (Tuesday, 7 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND (Monday, 6 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Wednesday, 1 August)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 (Saturday, 14 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 10 July)
• Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft (Tuesday, 3 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Shumon Huque

• Re: [saag] [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Tuesday, 11 September)

SiM

• Re: Regarding dynamic ip addressed for HTTP Servers. (Monday, 2 July)

srirama chandra sekhar

• range header query (Friday, 28 September)

Stefan Eissing

• Re: WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's (Friday, 17 August)
• Re: PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc (Friday, 3 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft (Tuesday, 3 July)

Stefanos Harhalakis

• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Tuesday, 28 August)
• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Tuesday, 28 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Sunday, 26 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Tuesday, 21 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Tuesday, 21 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis] (Monday, 20 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Sunday, 19 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Saturday, 18 August)
• Re: [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Saturday, 18 August)
• [RFC] Optional header negotitation (Friday, 17 August)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: [RFC] HTTP Information Request (Sunday, 15 July)

tom.petch

• Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) (Monday, 10 September)

Tony Hansen

• Re: mandatory draft sections (was Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)) (Wednesday, 12 September)

Travis Snoozy

• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Monday, 10 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Sunday, 9 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Wednesday, 11 July)
• Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints (Tuesday, 3 July)

Yahoo! Groups Notification

• Request to join http-wg (Friday, 28 September)

Yaron Goland

• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Friday, 7 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Thursday, 6 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Wednesday, 5 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Wednesday, 5 September)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt] (Thursday, 30 August)
• RE: Custom Ranges (Wednesday, 29 August)
• RE: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code? (Thursday, 23 August)
• Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code? (Monday, 20 August)
• RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt] (Thursday, 2 August)
• RE: Some comments on the PATCH draft (Tuesday, 3 July)

Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)

• Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG? (Sunday, 2 September)
• Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)

Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen

• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Internet-Drafts Posted (Thursday, 12 July)

Yves Lafon

• RE: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code? (Friday, 24 August)
• Re: thinking about etags (Thursday, 23 August)

Last message date: Sunday, 30 September 2007 21:16:11 UTC