NEW ISSUE: Content-Coding vs ETags
Status, Vancouver
new issue: remove redundant MUST obey xrefs
range header query
Request to join http-wg
[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-snell-http-prefer-00.txt]
NEW ISSUE: normative references
Revised charter proposal
Re: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
- Re: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
- RE: Next step on web phishingdraft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
- Required doc sections (Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt))
- Re: mandatory draft sections (was Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt))
RE: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
- Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
- Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)
Fwd: semantic error in RFC 2616
Fwd: (XMLHttpRequest 2) Third proposal for cross-site extensions to XMLHttpRequest
Fwd: update "Authoritative Metadata"/ contentTypeOverride-24 based on HTML 5 spec?
NEW ISSUE (?): LINK header
Fwd: [Fwd: Less drafty: RFC 2617 for OAuth]
[Fwd: Nomcom 2007-8: Please nominate candidates for IESG and IAB positions (Deadline: Sep 10, 2007)]
Custom Ranges
[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-09.txt]
Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code?
- Re: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code?
- Re: Should a DELETE against a non-existent resource return a 2xx code?
Conneg for media types [was: HTTP Information Request]
Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
- Re: Character encodings in headers [i74][was: Straw-man charter for http-bis]
Re: 305 Use Proxy deprecated?
Re: HTTP version numbers returned by proxies
Warnings
Re: Straw-man charter for http-bis
Re: Message delimiting security issues
thinking about etags
[RFC] Optional header negotitation
- RE: [RFC] Optional header negotitation
Trailers and intermediaries
HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?
- Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2817/2818 be in scope for the WG?
Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
- Re: Patch options -- summary of recent conversations
Clarification of the term "deflate"
- Re: Clarification of the term "deflate"
- Re: Clarification of the term "deflate"
New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- RE: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
- Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry
New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
- Definition of "variant" and "requested variant", was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND
PATCH, Expect, Prefer, etc
revised I-D draft-decroy-http-progress-01
Fodder for security issues document (was: dns binding)
Draft minutes from HTTPBis BOF
NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-get-location-00.txt
Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems
- Re: Resend: HTTP Performance extension for NAV(network-based anti-virus) systems
[ietf-http-wg] <none>
Revised charter proposal
BoF Summary
WWW-Authenticate, Authorization and 401's
NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-* headers vs PUT
[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]
Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- RE: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
- Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems
Re: NEW ISSUE: example for matching functions, was: Weak and strong ETags
Re: NEW ISSUE: example for matching functions, was: Weak and strong ETags
Re: [RFC] HTTP Information Request
status registry missing code 506
NEW ISSUE: clarify "requested variant"
NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303
Internet-Drafts Posted
PATCH draft
Draft agenda for the HTTPBis BOF
Metalink: higher availability and self repairing downloads
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.txt
Re: PATCH Draft
Some comments on the PATCH draft
- Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft
- Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft
- Re: Some comments on the PATCH draft
Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints
- Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints
- RE: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints
- Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints
- RE: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints
- Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints
- Re: Standardizing Firefox's Implementation of Link Fingerprints