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

Monday, 31 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Roy T. Fielding
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers David Morris
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- UTF-8 (was: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers) Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
Saturday, 29 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: i74 proposal take 2 Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Stefan Eissing
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Robert Sayre
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Roy T. Fielding
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: i74 proposal take 2 Mark Nottingham
Friday, 28 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: i74 proposal take 2 Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Stefan Eissing
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Stefan Eissing
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Stefan Eissing
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Martin Duerst
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Martin Duerst
- Re: i74 proposal take 2 Mark Nottingham
- Re: i74 proposal take 2 Frank Ellermann
- i74 proposal take 2 Mark Nottingham
Thursday, 27 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Robert Brewer
- RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Albert Lunde
- RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Robert Brewer
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Roy T. Fielding
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Jamie Lokier
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Martin Duerst
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Martin Duerst
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Martin Duerst
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy David Morris
- OT: History (was: Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20]) Martin Duerst
- Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] Martin Duerst
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] Frank Ellermann
- Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] Martin Duerst
- Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] Martin Duerst
- HTTPBis Summary Mark Nottingham
- RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Robert Brewer
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Roy T. Fielding
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Roy T. Fielding
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Frank Ellermann
- Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Default charsets for text media types [i20] Simon Perreault
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Julian Reschke
- Default charsets for text media types [i20] Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Frank Ellermann
- PROPOSAL: i99 Pipelining Problems Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Mark Nottingham
- PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Nicolas Alvarez
Monday, 24 March 2008
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Julian Reschke
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Frank Ellermann
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Julian Reschke
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Frank Ellermann
Thursday, 20 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Mark Nottingham
- RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses David Morris
- RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Brian Smith
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Julian Reschke
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Stefan Eissing
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Robert Siemer
- Re: HttpOnly Carsten Bormann
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
- Re: HttpOnly Jim Manico
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt Mark Nottingham
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Mark Nottingham
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses John Kemp
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Robert Siemer
- RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Julian Reschke
- RE: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Brian Smith
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding, was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: 307 Temporary Redirect Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Link header field titles Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Robert Siemer
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt Frank Ellermann
- Re: HttpOnly Daniel Stenberg
- HttpOnly Jim Manico
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Martin Duerst
- Re: Link header field titles Martin Duerst
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Roy T. Fielding
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Mark Nottingham
Monday, 17 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Robert Siemer
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Mark Nottingham
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-01.txt Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Link header field titles Julian Reschke
- Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Julian Reschke
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Robert Siemer
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Stephane Bortzmeyer
- HTTPBIS Summary Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: Link header field titles Julian Reschke
- i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers Mark Nottingham
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Julian Reschke
- Link header field titles (was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP) Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Stefan Eissing
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Anne van Kesteren
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Frank Ellermann
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Anne van Kesteren
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
- PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Mark Nottingham
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Mark Nottingham
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Martin Duerst
Saturday, 15 March 2008
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
Friday, 14 March 2008
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
Monday, 17 March 2008
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Robert Siemer
Sunday, 16 March 2008
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding Frank Ellermann
- Re: 307 Temporary Redirect Nicolas Alvarez
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Werner Baumann
- Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding, was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Julian Reschke
- Content-Disposition filename encoding, was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Robert Siemer
- Re: 307 Temporary Redirect Julian Reschke
- Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Robert Siemer
- 307 Temporary Redirect Nicolas Alvarez
Saturday, 15 March 2008
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Paul Hoffman
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Paul Hoffman
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Werner Baumann
- Re: Indicating response errors after the status-line is sent Robert Siemer
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Robert Siemer
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Frank Ellermann
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Brian Smith
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Frank Ellermann
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Werner Baumann
Friday, 14 March 2008
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Werner Baumann
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Brian Smith
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Brian Smith
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Stefan Eissing
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Brian Smith
- RE: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Frank Ellermann
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Brian Smith
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Phil Archer
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Stefan Eissing
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Mark Nottingham
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74] Mark Nottingham
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Stefan Eissing
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Mark Nottingham
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Martin Duerst
- RE: Pipelining problems [i99] Josh Cohen (MIG)
- RE: Content negotiation for request bodies Brian Smith
- RE: i107 Brian Smith
- RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Brian Smith
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Robert Sayre
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordstrom
Thursday, 13 March 2008
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordstrom
- RE: Content negotiation for request bodies Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Henrik Nordstrom
- RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Henrik Nordstrom
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Brian Smith
- RE: i107 Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Transfer-Encoding:chunked Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: Indicating response errors after the status-line is sent Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordstrom
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Paul Hoffman
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Brian Smith
- POWDER Use Case (was Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases) Phil Archer
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Frank Ellermann
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Brian Smith
- Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP Julian Reschke
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- RE: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (was: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases) Brian Smith
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
- IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP (was: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases) Frank Ellermann
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Roy T. Fielding
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
- RE: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Brian Smith
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- RE: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Brian Smith
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
- Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Julian Reschke
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Robert Siemer
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Julian Reschke
- Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- HTTPBIS Summary Mark Nottingham
- Pipelining problems [i99] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Mark Nottingham
- PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101] Mark Nottingham
- Re: i69: Requested Variant - moving forward Mark Nottingham
- Re: PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Mark Nottingham
- Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Mark Nottingham
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
Monday, 10 March 2008
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Julian Reschke
- Re: Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Mark Nottingham
Sunday, 9 March 2008
- Reviving HTTP Header Linking: Some code and use-cases Harry Halpin
Friday, 7 March 2008
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Robert Sayre
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Adrien de Croy
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Jamie Lokier
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Jamie Lokier
Thursday, 6 March 2008
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Adrien de Croy
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Robert Siemer
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Jamie Lokier
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Robert Siemer
- RE: Connection limits Eric Lawrence
- RE: Connection limits Eric Lawrence
- Re: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Jamie Lokier
- Re: Connection limits Jamie Lokier
- Re: Connection limits Jamie Lokier
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
- Re: Connection limits Adrien de Croy
- Re: Connection limits Roy T. Fielding
- RE: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Brian Smith
- RE: Connection limits Josh Cohen (MIG)
- Re: Connection limits David Morris
- Indicating response errors after the status-line is sent Mark Nottingham
- NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests Mark Nottingham
- Connection limits Mark Nottingham
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Mark Nottingham
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses John Kemp
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses John Kemp
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
Monday, 3 March 2008
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses John Kemp
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Baker
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses John Kemp
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses John Kemp
- RE: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Brian Smith
- Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems Robert Siemer
- Re: Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Robert Siemer
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Robert Siemer
- HTTPBIS Summary Mark Nottingham
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems Mark Nottingham
- Proposal: i105 Classification for Allow header Mark Nottingham
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
Friday, 29 February 2008
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Roy T. Fielding
- RE: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Brian Smith
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Stefan Eissing
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Stefan Eissing
- Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] Frank Ellermann
- FW: Content-* Semantics [i103] Brian Smith
Thursday, 28 February 2008
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Mark Nottingham
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: Content-* Semantics [i103][i102] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] Robert Sayre
- Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] Frank Ellermann
- Transfer-Encoding:chunked szukw000@arcor.de
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Subbu Allamaraju
- RE: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Brian Smith
- RE: Content-* Semantics [i103] Brian Smith
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Julian Reschke
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- RE: i107 Brian Smith
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Mark Nottingham
- RE: i107 Brian Smith
- PROPOSAL: i76 Use Proxy Mark Nottingham
- Re: Content-* Semantics [i103] Mark Nottingham
- Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Dan Winship
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- i69: Requested Variant - moving forward Mark Nottingham
- RE: Content-* Semantics [i103] Brian Smith
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems Adrian Chadd
- RE: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Brian Smith
- Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Mark Nottingham
- Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Robert Siemer
- Re: Reclassification of Allow as a response header [i105] Mark Nottingham
- Header type defaulting [i104] Mark Nottingham
- Content-* Semantics [i103] Mark Nottingham
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Mark Nottingham
- Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Mark Nottingham
- Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Mark Nottingham
- Re: New issue: 15.3 misguided? Mark Nottingham
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems Mark Nottingham
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
- Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Mark Nottingham
- Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Julian Reschke
- RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Brian Smith
- Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Julian Reschke
- RE: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Brian Smith
- Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Julian Reschke
- RE: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Brian Smith
- Unknown and misplaced headers as entity headers Brian Smith
- Reclassification of Allow as a response header Brian Smith
- RE: Content negotiation for request bodies Brian Smith
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies Adrien de Croy
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies Julian Reschke
- BIS -02 Drafts Mark Nottingham
Monday, 25 February 2008
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies Jamie Lokier
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies Jamie Lokier
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies David Morris
Sunday, 24 February 2008
- RE: Content negotiation for request bodies Brian Smith
- RE: Content negotiation for request bodies Brian Smith
- RE: Content negotiation for request bodies Brian Smith
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies Henrik Nordström
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies Adrien de Croy
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies David Morris
Friday, 22 February 2008
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
- Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Frank Ellermann
- Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Mark Nottingham
Saturday, 16 February 2008
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Robert Sayre
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range James M Snell
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Roy T. Fielding
- RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Brian Smith
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Robert Sayre
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Adrien de Croy
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Roy T. Fielding
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Julian Reschke
- RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Brian Smith
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Julian Reschke
- Re: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Julian Reschke
- RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Brian Smith
- RE: PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Brian Smith
- PATCH vs multipart/byteranges vs Content-Range Julian Reschke
Friday, 15 February 2008
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Frank Ellermann
- Access Control for Cross-site Requests WD Published Anne van Kesteren
- Re: Fwd: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordström
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" Brian Smith
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" Robert Siemer
- Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Frank Ellermann
Thursday, 14 February 2008
- Re: Content negotiation for request bodies Adrien de Croy
- Content negotiation for request bodies Brian Smith
- Re: wildcards in digest auth domain field Tim Olsen
- RE: Is Content-Range extensible? Brian Smith
- Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Roy T. Fielding
- Is Content-Range extensible? Subbu Allamaraju
- Re: wildcards in digest auth domain field Paul Hoffman
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Julian Reschke
- PROCESS: Tracking design issues under discussion Mark Nottingham
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Roy T. Fielding
- wildcards in digest auth domain field Tim Olsen
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Frank Ellermann
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: i76: 305 Use Proxy Julian Reschke
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Yutaka OIWA
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Roy T. Fielding
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
- Re: i76: 305 Use Proxy David Morris
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Robert Sayre
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Adrien de Croy
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Robert Sayre
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Robert Sayre
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Baker
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: order of Accept-* and Server-Driven negotiation Javier Godoy
- i76: 305 Use Proxy Mark Nottingham
- Re: order of Accept-* and Server-Driven negotiation Mark Nottingham
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Mark Nottingham
- order of Accept-* and Server-Driven negotiation olivier Thereaux
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Geoffrey Sneddon
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Frank Ellermann
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Frank Ellermann
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Robert Sayre
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Geoffrey Sneddon
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Frank Ellermann
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Albert Lunde
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Geoffrey Sneddon
- ABNF conversion status (issue <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>) Julian Reschke
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Julian Reschke
Saturday, 9 February 2008
- Re: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection Mark Baker
- Re: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection Lisa Dusseault
Friday, 8 February 2008
- Re: Description section removed from charter? Mark Nottingham
- Re: 503, 403 & Retry-After: enforcing a limit on the number of requests allowed Henrik Nordström
- Re: Description section removed from charter? David Morris
- Description section removed from charter? Michael(tm) Smith
Thursday, 7 February 2008
- FYI: Firefox 3 beta 4 will enable pipelining over https Robert Sayre
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
- 503, 403 & Retry-After: enforcing a limit on the number of requests allowed Hugo Haas
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordström
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Robert Sayre
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Leach
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Roy T. Fielding
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Frank Ellermann
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordström
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Mark Nottingham
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Henrik Nordström
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Henrik Nordström
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Henrik Nordström
- Re: does no-store request invalidate? [i23] Henrik Nordström
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Henrik Nordström
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Henrik Nordström
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Henrik Nordström
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Henrik Nordström
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Yves Lafon
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Yves Lafon
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Stefan Eissing
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: does no-store request invalidate? [i23] David Morris
- Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Baker
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: does no-store request invalidate? [i23] Mark Nottingham
- i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses Mark Nottingham
Monday, 4 February 2008
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing David Morris
- RE: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection Mike Dierken
Sunday, 3 February 2008
- Re: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection Carsten Bormann
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Hoffman
- RE: HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection Mike Dierken
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Mike Dierken
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Robert Sayre
Saturday, 2 February 2008
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Ian Hickson
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Julian Reschke
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Ian Hickson
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Julian Reschke
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Ian Hickson
- Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition Julian Reschke
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Julian Reschke
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Julian Reschke
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Julian Reschke
Friday, 1 February 2008
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Roy T. Fielding
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Leach
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Roy T. Fielding
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Adrien de Croy
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Jamie Lokier
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Henrik Nordström
- RE: CONNECT message including tunneled data Henrik Nordström
- RE: CONNECT message including tunneled data Adrien de Croy
Thursday, 31 January 2008
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Jamie Lokier
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Adrien de Croy
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Yves Lafon
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Jamie Lokier
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Jamie Lokier
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Jamie Lokier
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Yves Lafon
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Robert Sayre
- RE: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Brian Smith
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Ian Hickson
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Leach
- Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created? [ i21 ] Mark Nottingham
- Re: "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" Mark Nottingham
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Mark Nottingham
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
- Re: CONNECT message including tunneled data Adrien de Croy
- CONNECT message including tunneled data Robert Siemer
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Jamie Lokier
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Frank Ellermann
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Stefan Eissing
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Robert Siemer
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Robert Siemer
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Robert Siemer
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Robert Siemer
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Stefan Eissing
Monday, 28 January 2008
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Adrien de Croy
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Leach
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Jamie Lokier
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Leach
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Hoffman
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Stephane Bortzmeyer
- RE: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Leach
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Hoffman
- Re: Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Ian Hickson
Saturday, 26 January 2008
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Frank Ellermann
Friday, 25 January 2008
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Robert Siemer
- RE: "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" Larry Masinter
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Julian Reschke
- Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing Frank Ellermann
- HTML5 vs content type sniffing Julian Reschke
- Re: Javascript URI scheme (ACTION-46) Julian Reschke
- Javascript URI scheme (ACTION-46) Julian Reschke
Thursday, 24 January 2008
- Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition Roy T. Fielding
- Re: "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" Geoffrey Sneddon
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Yves Lafon
- "HTTP for Web Browsers and Servers" Larry Masinter
- Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition Frank Ellermann
- Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition Julian Reschke
- Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition lists@ingostruck.de
- Re: new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition lists@ingostruck.de
- new issue: mismatch between RFC2616 and RFC4234 CHAR definition Julian Reschke
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Adrien de Croy
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Mark Nottingham
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Adrien de Croy
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Roy T. Fielding
- Security Requirements for HTTP, draft -00 Paul Hoffman
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Frank Ellermann
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Julian Reschke
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Roy T. Fielding
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default James Graham
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Julian Reschke
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Anne van Kesteren
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default David Morris
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Anne van Kesteren
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Frank Ellermann
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Julian Reschke
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Anne van Kesteren
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default Frank Ellermann
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] Julian Reschke
- Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19] David Morris
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] Yutaka Oiwa
- Re: security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] Roy T. Fielding
- security impact of dropping charset default [Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20]] Yutaka Oiwa
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
- Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created? [ i21 ] Julian Reschke
- Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20] Julian Reschke
- Re: PUT, side effects and 201 Created? [ i21 ] Mark Nottingham
- Re: text/* types and charset defaults [i20] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19] Mark Nottingham
Sunday, 20 January 2008
- Re: text/* types and charset defaults Albert Lunde
- Re: text/* types and charset defaults Frank Ellermann
- Re: text/* types and charset defaults Julian Reschke
Friday, 18 January 2008
- HTTP 2.0: Request from server to clients at persistent connection Зимаков Павел
- Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01.txt Julian Reschke
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Eric Prud'hommeaux
Thursday, 17 January 2008
- Re: Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Eric Prud'hommeaux
- RE: Unknown text/* subtypes Larry Masinter
- Re: Content-Length and 1xx status codes Henrik Nordström
- Content-Length and 1xx status codes Adrien de Croy
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Ian Hickson
Monday, 14 January 2008
- Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Robert Siemer
- Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Ned Freed
Sunday, 13 January 2008
- Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Eric Prud'hommeaux
- text/* types and charset defaults Larry Masinter
- Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Larry Masinter
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Ian Hickson
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- Books about HTTP "spirit"? Robert Siemer
Saturday, 12 January 2008
- Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Robert Siemer
Friday, 11 January 2008
- Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Werner Baumann
- Re: SRV records for HTTP Adrian Chadd
- Re: SRV records for HTTP Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: SRV records for HTTP Frank Ellermann
- SRV records for HTTP Stephane Bortzmeyer
Thursday, 10 January 2008
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Geoffrey Sneddon
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Roy T. Fielding
- Re: http over sctp? Mark Nottingham
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
- http over sctp? Adrian Chadd
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Javier Godoy
- RE: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Robert Brewer
- Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes [i20] Mark Nottingham
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Werner Baumann
- Philidelphia Mark Nottingham
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Frank Ellermann
Monday, 7 January 2008
- Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Lisa Dusseault
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Jamie Lokier
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Jamie Lokier
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Julian Reschke
Sunday, 6 January 2008
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordström
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordström
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordström
- Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordström
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Mark Nottingham
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Werner Baumann
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Werner Baumann
- Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Robert Siemer
- Re: Updated Patch Julian Reschke
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Werner Baumann
Saturday, 5 January 2008
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordstrom
- RE: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: An alterntive approach regarding i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Werner Baumann
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Henrik Nordstrom
- Re: conditional request vs GET (new issue?) Mark Nottingham
Friday, 4 January 2008
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Julian Reschke
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Werner Baumann
- Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Julian Reschke
- Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses Julian Reschke
- Re: (Re: issue #93) Duplicated headers and security vulnerabilities Mark Nottingham
- i22: ETags on PUT responses Mark Nottingham
Thursday, 3 January 2008
- Re: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Werner Baumann
- Updated Patch James M Snell
- An alterntive approach regarding i93: Repeating Single-value headers David Morris
- RE: i93: Repeating Single-value headers David Morris
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
- RE: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Larry Masinter
- RE: NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Larry Masinter

Last message date: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:21:22 GMT
Archived on: Friday, 12 September 2008 03:49:01 GMT

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