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 UTC