ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2007 by date

Saturday, 29 December 2007

• NEW ISSUE: weak validator: definition inconsistent Werner Baumann
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordström

Friday, 28 December 2007

• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordström
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Julian Reschke
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordström
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Julian Reschke
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordström
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Henrik Nordström
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Frank Ellermann
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Anne van Kesteren

Thursday, 27 December 2007

• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Jamie Lokier

Wednesday, 26 December 2007

• Re: Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (was: Request for review of Turtle (an RDFserialization) media type: text/turtle) Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes Martin Duerst
• Re: Unknown text/* subtypes (was: Request for review of Turtle (an RDFserialization) media type: text/turtle) Martin Duerst

Tuesday, 25 December 2007

• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Bjoern Hoehrmann

Sunday, 23 December 2007

• Re: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Javier Godoy
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Julian Reschke
• Re: i93: Repeating Single-value headers Robert Siemer
• Re: i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Julian Reschke
• i69: Clarify "Requested Variant" [was: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND] Mark Nottingham
• i93: Repeating Single-value headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issues List -- new location Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 22 December 2007

• Issues List -- new location Mark Nottingham
• Draft minutes for Vancouver Mark Nottingham

Friday, 21 December 2007

• WG drafts for partitioned 2616bis Mark Nottingham
• RE: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Larry Masinter
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• Re: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Mark Nottingham

Friday, 14 December 2007

• RE: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Paul Leach

Thursday, 13 December 2007

• Re: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Stewart Brodie
• Re: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Yves Lafon
• Re: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Adrien de Croy
• Re: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections David Morris
• i15: How to tell if a client does not support persistent connections Lisa Dusseault

Wednesday, 12 December 2007

• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Andrew Daviel

Monday, 10 December 2007

• Re: Content-Location as Base URI Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Content-Location as Base URI Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Content-Location as Base URI L. David Baron
• Re: Content-Location as Base URI Henrik Nordstrom
• Content-Location as Base URI Franklin Tse
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Connection: "close" — Case sensitive or not? Henrik Nordstrom

Sunday, 9 December 2007

• Connection: "close" — Case sensitive or not? Geoffrey Sneddon
• Re: Updated PATCH draft Jamie Lokier
• conditional request vs GET (new issue?) Julian Reschke
• Re: Updated PATCH draft James M Snell
• Re: Updated PATCH draft Subbu Allamaraju
• Re: Updated PATCH draft Robert Siemer

Saturday, 8 December 2007

• Re: Updated PATCH draft Subbu Allamaraju
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Subbu Allamaraju
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Jamie Lokier
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Subbu Allamaraju
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Robert Siemer
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Subbu Allamaraju
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Robert Siemer

Thursday, 6 December 2007

• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-melnikov-digest-to-historic-00.txt Frank Ellermann
• Re: [NEW ISSUE] Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: security implications Henrik Nordstrom
• [Fwd: Working Group Last Call: draft-melnikov-digest-to-historic-00.txt] Alexey Melnikov

Wednesday, 5 December 2007

• moving forward with partitioned drafts Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Adrien de Croy
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Andrew Daviel
• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Mark Baker

Tuesday, 4 December 2007

• Re: Using server-driven negotiation Adrien de Croy
• Using server-driven negotiation Andrew Daviel
• Re: [NEW ISSUE] Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: security implications Adrien de Croy
• Re: [NEW ISSUE] Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: security implications Adrien de Croy
• [NEW ISSUE] Content-Length is a hop-to-hop header Yutaka OIWA
• (Re: issue #93) Duplicated headers and security vulnerabilities Yutaka OIWA
• [NEW ISSUE] Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding: security implications Yutaka OIWA

Sunday, 2 December 2007

• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19] Mark Baker
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19] Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: draft-sayre-http-security-variance-00.txt, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for errata/clarifications to 2617 Alexey Melnikov

Friday, 30 November 2007

• Agenda updated Mark Nottingham
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body [i19] Mark Nottingham
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Mark Baker
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Scott Nichol
• Vancouver agenda item BNF, was: progress on BNF conversion Julian Reschke
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Julian Reschke
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Stephane Bortzmeyer
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Adrien de Croy
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body David Morris
• Re: Request methods that allow an entity-body Mark Baker

Thursday, 29 November 2007

• Request methods that allow an entity-body Scott Nichol
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Alexey Melnikov
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 28 November 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Roy T. Fielding
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Robert Siemer
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Jamie Lokier
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Robert Siemer
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Mark Nottingham
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Mark Nottingham
• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Mark Nottingham
• i90: status of multipart/byteranges Mark Nottingham
• i89: If(-None)-Match still refers to entity Mark Nottingham
• i88: 205 Bodies Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Objectives of RFC2616bis? Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Objectives of RFC2616bis? Robert Siemer
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Roy T. Fielding
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Dan Winship

Tuesday, 27 November 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Roy T. Fielding
• RE: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Eric Lawrence
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Roy T. Fielding
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Jamie Lokier
• Re: Preliminary agenda up Robert Sayre
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Henrik Nordstrom

Monday, 26 November 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Roy T. Fielding
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Mark Nottingham
• Re: Preliminary agenda up Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Dan Winship
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Dan Winship
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Bjoern Hoehrmann
• NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Dan Winship
• Request for review on Access Control for Cross-site Requests Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Preliminary agenda up Robert Sayre
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Stephane Bortzmeyer
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Frank Ellermann
• Re: progress on BNF conversion Frank Ellermann
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Frank Ellermann

Sunday, 25 November 2007

• I18N and basic authentication Julian Reschke
• Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag" Julian Reschke

Friday, 23 November 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text David Morris
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Julian Reschke
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Julian Reschke
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Julian Reschke
• Re: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS? Julian Reschke
• Re: progress on BNF conversion Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Jamie Lokier

Thursday, 22 November 2007

• Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Geoffrey Sneddon
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Jamie Lokier
• Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Javier Godoy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Frank Ellermann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Julian Reschke
• NEW ISSUE: Transfer-Encoding in 1.0 messages Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Julian Reschke
• Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Frank Ellermann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text David Morris
• Preliminary agenda up Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: status on partitioned drafts Roy T. Fielding
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text David Morris
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Adrien de Croy

Wednesday, 21 November 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Roy T. Fielding
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Accepting pre-existing errata resolutions Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Julian Reschke
• Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Alexey Melnikov
• Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Julian Reschke
• Re: request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Alexey Melnikov
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Jamie Lokier
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Geoffrey Sneddon
• Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Bjoern Hoehrmann
• NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Julian Reschke
• NEW ISSUE: empty Host header Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• request for feedback: RFC2616 BNF name collisions Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 20 November 2007

• Re: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers David Morris
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Frank Ellermann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Frank Ellermann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Frank Ellermann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• NEW ISSUE: repeating non-list-type-headers Julian Reschke
• Re: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Mark Nottingham

Monday, 19 November 2007

• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Henrik Nordstrom
• References (was: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement) Frank Ellermann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Jamie Lokier
• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Julian Reschke
• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Frank Ellermann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Jamie Lokier
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Jamie Lokier

Sunday, 18 November 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Bjoern Hoehrmann
• draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04 submitted, was: What to include into draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04 Julian Reschke
• NEW ISSUE: status of multipart/byteranges Bjoern Hoehrmann

Saturday, 17 November 2007

• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom

Friday, 16 November 2007

• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Julian Reschke
• Re: What to include into draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04, was: Vancouver agenda topics Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 14 November 2007

• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Dave Kristol

Thursday, 15 November 2007

• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: What to include into draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04, was: Vancouver agenda topics Mark Nottingham
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Adrien de Croy
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom
• What to include into draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-04, was: Vancouver agenda topics Julian Reschke
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: Via MUST discussion Adrien de Croy
• Re: Via MUST discussion Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Henrik Nordstrom

Wednesday, 14 November 2007

• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement David Morris
• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Julian Reschke
• Re: Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Frank Ellermann
• Re: Via MUST discussion Julian Reschke
• Intro to Methods making Host header requirement Julian Reschke
• Re: progress on BNF conversion Frank Ellermann
• Re: progress on BNF conversion Julian Reschke
• Re: progress on BNF conversion Frank Ellermann
• Re: i70: cacheability of status 303 Frank Ellermann
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Adrien de Croy
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Adrien de Croy
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Adrien de Croy
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: i37 - Vary and non-existant headers Adrien de Croy
• Re: Via MUST discussion Henrik Nordstrom
• Via MUST discussion [was: Re: status on partitioned drafts David Morris
• Re: status on partitioned drafts Mark Nottingham
• Re: status on partitioned drafts Adrien de Croy

Tuesday, 13 November 2007

• status on partitioned drafts Roy T. Fielding
• Re: progress on BNF conversion Julian Reschke
• Re: progress on BNF conversion Roy T. Fielding
• progress on BNF conversion Julian Reschke
• Re: i70: cacheability of status 303 Julian Reschke
• Re: cacheability of status 303 Frank Ellermann
• Re: i31 (qdtext BNF) resolved Mark Nottingham
• i70: cacheability of status 303 Mark Nottingham
• i25 - Accept-Encoding BNF [was: Erratum in RFC 2616] Mark Nottingham

Monday, 12 November 2007

• Accepting pre-existing errata resolutions Mark Nottingham
• Re: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Vancouver agenda topics Mark Nottingham
• Re: Vancouver agenda topics Julian Reschke
• Re: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Subbu Allamaraju
• Re: Creating a HTTP "protocol feature set" Mark Nottingham
• Vancouver agenda topics Mark Nottingham
• Re: [i16] Remove 'identity' token references Mark Nottingham
• Re: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue 27 (PUT Idempotency) Mark Nottingham
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 8 November 2007

• Re: draft-sayre-http-security-variance-00.txt, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for errata/clarifications to 2617 Robert Sayre

Monday, 5 November 2007

• Re: [i47] inconsistency in date format explanation Frank Ellermann
• Re: [i47] inconsistency in date format explanation Roy T. Fielding

Sunday, 4 November 2007

• Re: Editorial Nit: referring to status codes David Morris
• Editorial Nit: referring to status codes Julian Reschke
• RE: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Mike Dierken
• Re: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Julian Reschke
• Creating a HTTP "protocol feature set" Larry Masinter
• RE: [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Larry Masinter

Saturday, 3 November 2007

• [i81] Content Negotiation for media types Javier Godoy
• Issue 27 (PUT Idempotency) Julian Reschke
• Re: [i47] inconsistency in date format explanation Julian Reschke
• Re: [i16] Remove 'identity' token references Roy T. Fielding
• [i47] inconsistency in date format explanation Roy T. Fielding

Wednesday, 31 October 2007

• Re: HTTPBIS - getting started Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTPBIS - getting started Justin Erenkrantz

Monday, 29 October 2007

• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Geoffrey Sneddon
• draft-sayre-http-security-variance-00.txt, was: Straw-man charter for http-bis -- call for errata/clarifications to 2617 Julian Reschke
• NOTE WELL - contributions to this mailing list Mark Nottingham
• HTTPBIS - getting started Mark Nottingham
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Frank Ellermann
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: does no-store request invalidate? Henrik Nordstrom

Sunday, 28 October 2007

• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string David Morris
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Geoffrey Sneddon
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Geoffrey Sneddon
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Geoffrey Sneddon
• Re: Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Semantic meaning of double quotation marks delimiting quoted-string Geoffrey Sneddon

Saturday, 27 October 2007

• Updated PATCH draft James M Snell

Friday, 26 October 2007

• Re: does no-store request invalidate? Werner Baumann

Thursday, 25 October 2007

• Re: Status, Vancouver Mark Nottingham
• Re: Status, Vancouver Julian Reschke
• Re: Status, Vancouver Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 24 October 2007

• Re: Status, Vancouver Justin Erenkrantz

Tuesday, 23 October 2007

• WG Action: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG (httpbis) IESG Secretary

Monday, 22 October 2007

• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Julian Reschke
• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Jamie Lokier
• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 21 October 2007

• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Roy T. Fielding

Friday, 19 October 2007

• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Robert Sayre

Saturday, 20 October 2007

• Re: Status, Vancouver Julian Reschke

Thursday, 18 October 2007

• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Julian Reschke
• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Mark Nottingham
• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding

Wednesday, 17 October 2007

• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Sam Hartman
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Roy T. Fielding
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Sam Hartman
• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephane Bortzmeyer
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) James M Snell
• RE: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
• SRV records in scope? (Was: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephane Bortzmeyer
• Re: RFC 2616, partitioned Mark Nottingham
• Re: Link Header draft Phil Archer
• Re: Link Header draft Julian Reschke
• Re: Link Header draft Anne van Kesteren
• RFC2617: section reference erratum Julian Reschke
• Re: Link Header draft Phil Archer
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Frank Ellermann
• RFC 2616, partitioned Roy T. Fielding
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding

Tuesday, 16 October 2007

• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Lisa Dusseault
• Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: [new issue] If(-None)-Match still refers to entity Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 Julian Reschke

Monday, 15 October 2007

• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: Link Header draft Ian Hickson
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Baker
• Re: Link Header draft Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Frank Ellermann
• Re: Link Header draft Ian Hickson
• Re: Link Header draft Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Link Header draft Julian Reschke
• Re: Link Header draft Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 14 October 2007

• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) James M Snell
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman

Friday, 12 October 2007

• [new issue] If(-None)-Match still refers to entity Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Lisa Dusseault
• Re: new issue: URI length limitations Anne van Kesteren
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Coding vs ETags Julian Reschke
• new issue: URI length limitations Mark Nottingham
• Re: new issue: remove redundant MUST obey xrefs Mark Nottingham
• Re: Custom Ranges Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: normative references Mark Nottingham
• Re: semantic error in RFC 2616 Mark Nottingham
• Re: [new issue] Re: Proxying OPTIONS * Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: rel_path not used Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Coding vs ETags Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 11 October 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Content-Coding vs ETags Jamie Lokier
• Re: WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) Ted Hardie
• WG Review: HyperText Transport Protocol Bis (httpbis) IESG Secretary

Tuesday, 9 October 2007

• RE: status of delta compression (encoding) for HTTP servers/browsers? Eric Lawrence
• status of delta compression (encoding) for HTTP servers/browsers? Andy King

Monday, 8 October 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: rel_path not used Henrik Nordstrom

Sunday, 7 October 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: NO default charset Asbjørn Ulsberg
• NEW ISSUE: rel_path not used Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: NO default charset Julian Reschke

Saturday, 6 October 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: NO default charset Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: NO default charset Martin Duerst

Friday, 5 October 2007

• Re: NEW ISSUE: NO default charset Julian Reschke
• NEW ISSUE: NO default charset Martin Duerst

Thursday, 4 October 2007

• RE: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)

Wednesday, 3 October 2007

• [new issue] Re: Proxying OPTIONS * Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Proxying OPTIONS * Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: cacheability of status 303 Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
• revised draft-decroy-http-progress-03 Adrien de Croy
• Re: Status, Vancouver Mark Nottingham
• Re: Status, Vancouver Justin Erenkrantz

Tuesday, 2 October 2007

• RE: RFC 2617 Authentication-Info BNF Paul Leach
• Re: RFC 2617 Authentication-Info BNF Tim Olsen
• RE: RFC 2617 Authentication-Info BNF Paul Leach

Monday, 1 October 2007

• Re: 209 No Content vs. application/empty Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: 209 No Content vs. application/empty James M Snell
• Re: 209 No Content vs. application/empty Henrik Nordstrom
• Re: Proxying OPTIONS * Henrik Nordstrom
• RFC 2617 Authentication-Info BNF Tim Olsen
• Re: 209 No Content vs. application/empty Andreas Sewe
• 209 No Content vs. application/empty James M Snell

Last message date: Saturday, 29 December 2007 16:57:55 UTC