ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2008 by author

Adrian Chadd

• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: SRV records for HTTP (Friday, 11 January)
• http over sctp? (Wednesday, 9 January)

Adrien de Croy

• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Friday, 7 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Connection limits (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Friday, 1 February)
• RE: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Thursday, 24 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Content-Length and 1xx status codes (Thursday, 17 January)

Albert Lunde

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: text/* types and charset defaults (Sunday, 20 January)

Anne van Kesteren

• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Access Control for Cross-site Requests WD Published (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)

Brian Smith

• RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Thursday, 20 March)
• RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 18 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Saturday, 15 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: Content negotiation for request bodies (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: i107 (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (was: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases) (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• RE: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Tuesday, 11 March)
• RE: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Wednesday, 5 March)
• RE: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• RE: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 29 February)
• FW: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Friday, 29 February)
• RE: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: i107 (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: i107 (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Reclassification of Allow as a response header (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: Content negotiation for request bodies (Wednesday, 27 February)
• RE: Content negotiation for request bodies (Sunday, 24 February)
• RE: Content negotiation for request bodies (Sunday, 24 February)
• RE: Content negotiation for request bodies (Sunday, 24 February)
• RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" (Friday, 15 February)
• Content negotiation for request bodies (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: Is Content-Range extensible? (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 31 January)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 31 January)

Carsten Bormann

• Re: HttpOnly (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection (Sunday, 3 February)

Dan Winship

• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response (Thursday, 28 February)

Daniel Stenberg

• Re: HttpOnly (Tuesday, 18 March)

David Morris

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Thursday, 20 March)
• Re: Connection limits (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: i76: 305 Use Proxy (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Description section removed from charter? (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: does no-store request invalidate? [i23] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Monday, 4 February)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19] (Wednesday, 23 January)
• An alterntive approach regarding i93: Repeating Single-value headers (Thursday, 3 January)
• RE: i93: Repeating Single-value headers (Thursday, 3 January)

Eric Lawrence

• RE: Connection limits (Thursday, 6 March)
• RE: Connection limits (Thursday, 6 March)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: Re: Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Friday, 18 January)
• Re: Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Thursday, 17 January)
• Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Sunday, 13 January)

Frank Ellermann

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• UTF-8 (was: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers) (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: i74 proposal take 2 (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Wednesday, 26 March)
• Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Monday, 24 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Monday, 24 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Link header field titles (was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP) (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Sunday, 16 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (was: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases) (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Friday, 29 February)
• Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 26 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Friday, 25 January)
• Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition (Thursday, 24 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: text/* types and charset defaults (Sunday, 20 January)
• Re: SRV records for HTTP (Friday, 11 January)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Tuesday, 8 January)

Geoffrey Sneddon

• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" (Thursday, 24 January)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Thursday, 10 January)

Harry Halpin

• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Monday, 10 March)
• Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Sunday, 9 March)

Henrik Nordstrom

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Saturday, 29 March)
• RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Thursday, 20 March)
• RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Thursday, 20 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Thursday, 20 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding, was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: 307 Temporary Redirect (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: i107 (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: Content negotiation for request bodies (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Thursday, 13 March)
• RE: i107 (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Transfer-Encoding:chunked (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Indicating response errors after the status-line is sent (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Monday, 7 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Monday, 7 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Monday, 7 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Saturday, 5 January)
• RE: i93: Repeating Single-value headers (Saturday, 5 January)
• Re: An alterntive approach regarding i93: Repeating Single-value headers (Saturday, 5 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Saturday, 5 January)

Henrik Nordström

• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Sunday, 24 February)
• Re: Fwd: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: 503, 403 & Retry-After: enforcing a limit on the number of requests allowed (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: does no-store request invalidate? [i23] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Friday, 1 February)
• RE: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: Content-Length and 1xx status codes (Thursday, 17 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers (Sunday, 6 January)

Hugo Haas

• 503, 403 & Retry-After: enforcing a limit on the number of requests allowed (Wednesday, 6 February)

Ian Hickson

• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Wednesday, 30 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Tuesday, 15 January)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Sunday, 13 January)

Internet-Drafts@ietf.org

• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Friday, 22 February)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-00.txt (Wednesday, 23 January)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01.txt (Sunday, 13 January)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01.txt (Sunday, 13 January)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01.txt (Sunday, 13 January)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01.txt (Sunday, 13 January)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01.txt (Sunday, 13 January)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01.txt (Sunday, 13 January)
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01.txt (Sunday, 13 January)

James Graham

• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)

James M Snell

• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Updated Patch (Thursday, 3 January)

Jamie Lokier

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Saturday, 29 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Friday, 7 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Friday, 7 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Connection limits (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Connection limits (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Monday, 7 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Monday, 7 January)

Javier Godoy

• Re: order of Accept-* and Server-Driven negotiation (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Wednesday, 9 January)

Jim Manico

• Re: HttpOnly (Tuesday, 18 March)
• HttpOnly (Tuesday, 18 March)

John Kemp

• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)

Josh Cohen (MIG)

• RE: Pipelining problems [i99] (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: Connection limits (Wednesday, 5 March)

Julian Reschke

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: i74 proposal take 2 (Saturday, 29 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Saturday, 29 March)
• Re: i74 proposal take 2 (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Monday, 24 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Monday, 24 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Thursday, 20 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: Link header field titles (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: Link header field titles (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: Link header field titles (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding, was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Sunday, 16 March)
• Content-Disposition filename encoding, was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Sunday, 16 March)
• Re: 307 Temporary Redirect (Sunday, 16 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Monday, 10 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 29 February)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Friday, 29 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: Content negotiation for request bodies (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i76: 305 Use Proxy (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• ABNF conversion status (issue <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>) (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Saturday, 2 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Friday, 25 January)
• HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Friday, 25 January)
• Re: Javascript URI scheme (ACTION-46) (Friday, 25 January)
• Javascript URI scheme (ACTION-46) (Friday, 25 January)
• Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition (Thursday, 24 January)
• new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition (Thursday, 24 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created? [ i21 ] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: text/* types and charset defaults (Sunday, 20 January)
• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01.txt (Friday, 18 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Monday, 7 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Monday, 7 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: Updated Patch (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Friday, 4 January)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Friday, 4 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Friday, 4 January)

Larry Masinter

• RE: "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" (Friday, 25 January)
• "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" (Thursday, 24 January)
• RE: Unknown text/* subtypes (Thursday, 17 January)
• text/* types and charset defaults (Sunday, 13 January)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Sunday, 13 January)
• RE: i93: Repeating Single-value headers (Wednesday, 2 January)
• RE: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Wednesday, 2 January)

Lisa Dusseault

• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Monday, 7 January)

lists@ingostruck.de

• Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition (Thursday, 24 January)
• Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition (Thursday, 24 January)

Mark Baker

• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: i74 proposal take 2 (Saturday, 29 March)
• Re: i74 proposal take 2 (Friday, 28 March)
• i74 proposal take 2 (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• HTTPBis Summary (Wednesday, 26 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Wednesday, 26 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• PROPOSAL: i99 Pipelining Problems (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Tuesday, 25 March)
• PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Thursday, 20 March)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 17 March)
• Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt (Monday, 17 March)
• HTTPBIS Summary (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Monday, 17 March)
• i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 17 March)
• PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Tuesday, 11 March)
• HTTPBIS Summary (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Pipelining problems [i99] (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 11 March)
• PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: i69: Requested Variant - moving forward (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Monday, 10 March)
• Indicating response errors after the status-line is sent (Wednesday, 5 March)
• NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Connection limits (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• HTTPBIS Summary (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Monday, 3 March)
• Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Content-* Semantics [i103][i102] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 28 February)
• i69: Requested Variant - moving forward (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Header type defaulting [i104] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: New issue: 15.3 misguided? (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 26 February)
• BIS -02 Drafts (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Tuesday, 19 February)
• PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 13 February)
• i76: 305 Use Proxy (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: order of Accept-* and Server-Driven negotiation (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Description section removed from charter? (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: does no-store request invalidate? [i23] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Wednesday, 30 January)
• Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created? [ i21 ] (Wednesday, 30 January)
• Re: "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" (Wednesday, 30 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 30 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Thursday, 24 January)
• Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created? [ i21 ] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: http over sctp? (Thursday, 10 January)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Wednesday, 9 January)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Wednesday, 9 January)
• Philidelphia (Tuesday, 8 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: conditional request vs GET (new issue?) (Saturday, 5 January)
• Re: (Re: issue #93) Duplicated headers and security vulnerabilities (Friday, 4 January)
• i22: ETags on PUT responses (Friday, 4 January)

Martin Duerst

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• OT: History (was: Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20]) (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Wednesday, 26 March)
• Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Wednesday, 26 March)
• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: Link header field titles (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Friday, 14 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)

Michael(tm) Smith

• Description section removed from charter? (Friday, 8 February)

Mike Dierken

• RE: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection (Monday, 4 February)
• RE: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection (Sunday, 3 February)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Sunday, 3 February)

Ned Freed

• Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (Monday, 14 January)

Nicolas Alvarez

• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: 307 Temporary Redirect (Sunday, 16 March)
• 307 Temporary Redirect (Sunday, 16 March)

olivier Thereaux

• order of Accept-* and Server-Driven negotiation (Wednesday, 13 February)

Paul Hoffman

• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Saturday, 15 March)
• RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Thursday, 13 March)
• Re: wildcards in digest auth domain field (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Sunday, 3 February)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Wednesday, 23 January)

Paul Leach

• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Wednesday, 6 February)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Friday, 1 February)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Wednesday, 30 January)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)

Phil Archer

• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• POWDER Use Case (was Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases) (Thursday, 13 March)

Robert Brewer

• RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Wednesday, 26 March)
• RE: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Wednesday, 9 January)

Robert Sayre

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Saturday, 29 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 7 March)
• Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• FYI: Firefox 3 beta 4 will enable pipelining over https (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Sunday, 3 February)
• RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Thursday, 31 January)

Robert Siemer

• Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Sunday, 16 March)
• Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Sunday, 16 March)
• Re: Indicating response errors after the status-line is sent (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Monday, 3 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" (Friday, 15 February)
• CONNECT message including tunneled data (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Friday, 25 January)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Monday, 14 January)
• Books about HTTP "spirit"? (Sunday, 13 January)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Saturday, 12 January)
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers (Sunday, 6 January)

Roy T. Fielding

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Monday, 31 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Saturday, 29 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Thursday, 27 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Wednesday, 26 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Wednesday, 26 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Tuesday, 25 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Tuesday, 18 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Wednesday, 12 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases (Tuesday, 11 March)
• Re: Connection limits (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 4 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 29 February)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers (Wednesday, 27 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition (Thursday, 24 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] (Wednesday, 23 January)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 10 January)

Simon Perreault

• Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] (Tuesday, 25 March)

Stefan Eissing

• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Saturday, 29 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers (Friday, 28 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Wednesday, 19 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses (Friday, 29 February)
• Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] (Friday, 29 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing (Tuesday, 29 January)

Stephane Bortzmeyer

• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Monday, 17 March)
• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: SRV records for HTTP (Friday, 11 January)
• SRV records for HTTP (Friday, 11 January)

Subbu Allamaraju

• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Monday, 25 February)
• Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range (Saturday, 16 February)
• Is Content-Range extensible? (Thursday, 14 February)

szukw000@arcor.de

• Transfer-Encoding:chunked (Thursday, 28 February)

Tim Olsen

• Re: wildcards in digest auth domain field (Thursday, 14 February)
• wildcards in digest auth domain field (Thursday, 14 February)

Werner Baumann

• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Sunday, 16 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Saturday, 15 March)
• Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] (Friday, 14 March)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Friday, 11 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Tuesday, 8 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Sunday, 6 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Saturday, 5 January)
• Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses (Friday, 4 January)
• Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent (Thursday, 3 January)

Yutaka OIWA

• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] (Wednesday, 23 January)
• security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] (Wednesday, 23 January)

Yves Lafon

• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Tuesday, 5 February)
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 31 January)
• RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: security impact of dropping charset default (Thursday, 24 January)

Зимаков Павел

• HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection (Friday, 18 January)

Last message date: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:21:22 UTC