ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2005 by author

Alex Rousskov

Re: 3.10 Language tags; Subtag; Pipe is the alternation token (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: 3.10 Language tags; Subtag; Pipe is the alternation token (Wednesday, 29 June)
Re: erratum in RFC 2616: 405 should not require an Allow field in response (Friday, 24 June)
Re: erratum in RFC 2616: 405 should not require an Allow field in response (Thursday, 23 June)
test2 (Sunday, 12 June)
test (Sunday, 12 June)
Re: Erratum in RFC 2616 (Friday, 3 June)
Re: Interpretation of Request-URI Definition (Friday, 20 May)
Re: Linear whitespace (Friday, 6 May)

Brian Kell

Erratum in RFC 2616 (Thursday, 2 June)
Minor erratum in RFC 2616 (Monday, 23 May)

Christian Nybø

Re: 3.10 Language tags; Subtag; Pipe is the alternation token (Wednesday, 29 June)
3.10 Language tags; Subtag; Pipe is the alternation token (Friday, 24 June)
This still the place for suggestions to rfc 2616? (Tuesday, 21 June)

Cruise.Planning

Get ready and Get Cruising! (Tuesday, 26 April)

decoux@moulon.inra.fr

Volk wird nur zum zahlen gebraucht! (Monday, 16 May)

Deschenes, David

RE: Interpretation of Request-URI Definition (Friday, 20 May)
Interpretation of Request-URI Definition (Thursday, 19 May)

gisle@activestate.com

Multi-Kulturell = Multi-Kriminell (Sunday, 15 May)

i ahmed

ietf-http-wg@w3.org is Cool (Sunday, 12 June)
Re: poe (Tuesday, 12 April)

ICDM

Final CFP : IEEE ICDM'05 (Thursday, 2 June)
Final CFP : IEEE ICDM'05 (Thursday, 19 May)

Jamie Lokier

Re: Pipelining and Expect: 100-continue interaction (Friday, 22 April)
Re: Pipelining and Expect: 100-continue interaction (Friday, 22 April)
Re: Pipelining and Expect: 100-continue interaction (Friday, 22 April)

Marc Schneider

Re: Linear whitespace (Wednesday, 4 May)
Re: Linear whitespace (Wednesday, 4 May)
Linear whitespace (Wednesday, 4 May)
Re: Pipelining and Expect: 100-continue interaction (Friday, 22 April)
Re: Pipelining and Expect: 100-continue interaction (Friday, 22 April)
Pipelining and Expect: 100-continue interaction (Friday, 22 April)

Mark Nottingham

Re: poe (Wednesday, 6 April)
Re: poe (Friday, 1 April)
Re: poe (Friday, 1 April)

Roy T. Fielding

Re: erratum in RFC 2616: 405 should not require an Allow field in response (Thursday, 23 June)
erratum in RFC 2616: 405 should not require an Allow field in response (Thursday, 23 June)

Sam Idicula

Digest authentication: auth-int susceptible to DOS attacks? (Monday, 2 May)

Scott Lawrence

Re: This still the place for suggestions to rfc 2616? (Wednesday, 22 June)
Re: Minor erratum in RFC 2616 (Monday, 23 May)

Stefan Eissing

Re: poe (Friday, 1 April)

Yves Lafon

Re: erratum in RFC 2616: 405 should not require an Allow field in response (Friday, 24 June)
OPTIONS on a non-existent resource. (Friday, 20 May)

Last message date: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 19:55:12 UTC