ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2009 by date

Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: Content-MD5 and partial responses Yves Lafon
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: Content-MD5 and partial responses Yves Lafon
Re: Content-MD5 and partial responses Mark Nottingham

Monday, 29 June 2009

Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive David Morris
Appropriate response code if server wants to enforce conditional PUT/DELETE? Jan Algermissen
Content-MD5 and partial responses Mark Nottingham
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Adrien de Croy

Sunday, 28 June 2009

The HTTP Sec-From Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom

Friday, 26 June 2009

Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
Re: CR and LF in chunk extension values Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom
Re: HTTP over SCTP without chunked encoding Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTP over SCTP without chunked encoding Fred Baker
Re: HTTP over SCTP without chunked encoding Henrik Nordstrom

Thursday, 25 June 2009

Re: HTTP over SCTP without chunked encoding leighton@mail.eecis.udel.edu
Re: draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05: a question and an experimental implementation Michael Burrows
Re: draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05: a question and an experimental implementation Phil Archer
Re: draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05: a question and an experimental implementation Michael Burrows
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
Fwd: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Mark Nottingham
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
Re: CR and LF in chunk extension values Mark Nottingham
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Mark Nottingham
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
Re: PROPOSAL: Sending Referer [#144] Mark Nottingham
Re: RED: a tool for examining HTTP resources Mark Nottingham
RED: a tool for examining HTTP resources Mark Nottingham
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTP over SCTP without chunked encoding Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Henrik Nordstrom
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
Re: 304 reponse with unrecognised ETag Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Bil Corry
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Monday, 22 June 2009

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams

Sunday, 21 June 2009

FYI: Stockholm meeting slot Mark Nottingham

Friday, 19 June 2009

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing David Singer
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams
304 reponse with unrecognised ETag Adrien de Croy
draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05: a question and an experimental implementation Michael Burrows
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing David Singer
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan

Thursday, 18 June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing David Singer
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Adrien de Croy
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Henrik Nordstrom
Re: chunking without chunking Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Adrien de Croy
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
CR and LF in chunk extension values Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Jonas Sicking
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Maciej Stachowiak
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Adrien de Croy
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Anne van Kesteren
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Anne van Kesteren
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Daniel Stenberg
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Maciej Stachowiak
Re: chunking without chunking (MSIE8 and Chrome issues?) Mark Nottingham
chunking without chunking Adrien de Croy
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Shane McCarron
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Dave Singer
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Shane McCarron
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing David Singer
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adrien de Croy
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Roy T. Fielding
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Adrien de Croy
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Adrien de Croy
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Roy T. Fielding
Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Roy T. Fielding
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Joe D Williams

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Re: HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header David Morris
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
HTTP/1.1 CONNECT request without Host header Adrien de Croy
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Henrik Nordstrom
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing David Singer
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Jamie Lokier
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Jamie Lokier
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Roy T. Fielding
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Anne van Kesteren
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Jamie Lokier
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Jamie Lokier
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Jamie Lokier
FYI: HTTPbis Tweets Mark Nottingham
"Resource" in dictionaryRe: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Martin J. Dürst

Monday, 15 June 2009

Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen
Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other Jonathan Rees
Re: Is OPTIONS Safe? Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Jonathan Rees
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Simon Pieters

Sunday, 14 June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Jamie Lokier
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Werner Baumann
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Werner Baumann
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adrien de Croy
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adrien de Croy
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adrien de Croy

Saturday, 13 June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adrien de Croy
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Jamie Lokier
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Jamie Lokier
Re: Is OPTIONS Safe? Jamie Lokier
Re: 10 years Julian Reschke
#94 (Reason-Phrase BNF) Julian Reschke
10 years Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: Is OPTIONS Safe? [#171] Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: PROPOSAL: Sending Referer [#144] Julian Reschke
Re: PATCH and ETags Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adrien de Croy
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom

Friday, 12 June 2009

RE: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: PROPOSAL: Sending Referer [#144] Adam Barth
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Adam Barth
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
PATCH and ETags Pablo Castro
Re: PROPOSAL: Sending Referer [#144] Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 David Morris
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: non CHAR characters in headers Julian Reschke
Re: non CHAR characters in headers Martin J. Dürst
non CHAR characters in headers Adrien de Croy
Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft Mark Nottingham
PROPOSAL: Sending Referer [#144] Mark Nottingham
Re: PROPOSAL: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 11 June 2009

Fwd: [hybi] draft-loreto-http-bidirectional Salvatore Loreto
Add: Re: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Robert de Wilde
Re: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Robert de Wilde
Re: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Robert de Wilde
Re: Add: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Thomas Broyer
Re: Add: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Robert de Wilde
Re: Requests that do now allow bodies (do they exist?), was: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Add: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Roy T. Fielding
Requests that do now allow bodies (do they exist?), was: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
Add: How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Robert de Wilde
How legal is this HTTP header (1.1)? Robert de Wilde
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Henrik Nordstrom

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Henrik Nordstrom
Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft Patrick McManus
Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft James M Snell
Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft Patrick McManus

Tuesday, 9 June 2009

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposed Erratum for RFC 2817, was: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Mark Nottingham
Revised: Upcoming meetings (Stockholm and Hiroshima) Mark Nottingham

Monday, 8 June 2009

Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft James M Snell
Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft James M Snell
Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft Daniel Stenberg
Re: HTTP Batch Request Draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
HTTP Batch Request Draft James M Snell
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Javier Godoy
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Roy T. Fielding
Proposed Erratum for RFC 2817, was: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Julian Reschke
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Adrien de Croy
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Adrien de Croy
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal for i23: no-store invalidation Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Adrien de Croy
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Adrien de Croy
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Roy T. Fielding
Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Mark Nottingham
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Julian Reschke
Re: PROPOSAL: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Jamie Lokier
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Jamie Lokier
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Adrien de Croy
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Jamie Lokier
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Boris Zbarsky
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Mark Nottingham
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Jamie Lokier
httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 7 June 2009

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Jamie Lokier
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Jamie Lokier
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Jamie Lokier
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Mark Nottingham
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Jamie Lokier
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Mark Nottingham
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Mark Nottingham
Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) – httpbis Mark Nottingham
PROPOSAL: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 David Morris
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 6 June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 5 June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) – httpbis Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Ian Hickson
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) – httpbis Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: updating headers with 304 responses Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: allowing sniffed type list to be extensible? No. Adam Barth
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
updating headers with 304 responses Adrien de Croy
Re: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Julian Reschke
Proposal: Is OPTIONS Safe? [#171] Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Mark Nottingham
Re: #172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) – httpbis Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Alexey Melnikov
Re: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Baker
#172 (take over HTTP Upgrade Token Registry) – httpbis Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: Is OPTIONS Safe? [#171] Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 3 June 2009

Re: Vary: Cookie Jamie Lokier
Re: Vary: Cookie Jamie Lokier
Issue 170, was: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Julian Reschke
Re: IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Mark Nottingham
IANA Registration Requirements for Status Codes and Method Names Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Mark Nottingham
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Mark Nottingham
Re: Is OPTIONS Safe? Julian Reschke
Re: Vary: Cookie Mark Nottingham
Re: Is OPTIONS Safe? Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Baker
Re: Is OPTIONS Safe? John Kemp
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Upcoming meetings (Stockholm and Hiroshima) Mark Nottingham
Scope of redirection Mark Nottingham
Is OPTIONS Safe? Mark Nottingham
Vary: Cookie Adrien de Croy
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Adrien de Croy

Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Re: CONNECT command with message body Patrick McManus
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Baker
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Daniel Stenberg
Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Daniel Stenberg
RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Brian Smith
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Mark Nottingham
Re: absolute URI in request to origin servers which are also proxies. David Morris
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Mark Nottingham
Re: absolute URI in request to origin servers which are also proxies. Adrien de Croy
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: absolute URI in request to origin servers which are also proxies. David Morris
Re: absolute URI in request to origin servers which are also proxies. Adrien de Croy
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: absolute URI in request to origin servers which are also proxies. David Morris
absolute URI in request to origin servers which are also proxies. Adrien de Croy
Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Roy T. Fielding

Monday, 1 June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Adam Barth
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Adam Barth
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Adam Barth
Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Julian Reschke
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Baker
RE: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Brian Smith
Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Julian Reschke
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Julian Reschke
RE: Sending Referer [#144] Brian Smith
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Adam Barth
Re: Sending Referer [#144] Adam Barth
Sending Referer [#144] Mark Nottingham
Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155 Mark Nottingham
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Robert O'Callahan
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Ian Hickson

Sunday, 31 May 2009

Re: allowing sniffed type list to be extensible? No. Adam Barth
Re: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Adam Barth
allowing sniffed type list to be extensible? No. Larry Masinter
RE: comments on draft-barth-mime-sniffing Larry Masinter

Saturday, 30 May 2009

Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth

Friday, 29 May 2009

FYI: CORS review Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 28 May 2009

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-02.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

408 Timeout details Robert Brewer
RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Brian Smith
RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 David Morris
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Thomas Broyer
RE: Cache-Control private="...", no-cache="..." (was RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06) Brian Smith
RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Brian Smith
Re: Cache-Control private="...", no-cache="..." (was RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06) Yves Lafon
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Adrien de Croy
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Adrien de Croy
RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Brian Smith
Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Adrien de Croy
Re: relative weights of different Accept-* headers in content negotiation Adrien de Croy
Cache-Control private="...", no-cache="..." (was RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06) Brian Smith
RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Brian Smith
RE: relative weights of different Accept-* headers in content negotiation Brian Smith
Re: relative weights of different Accept-* headers in content negotiation Adrien de Croy
RE: relative weights of different Accept-* headers in content negotiation Brian Smith
relative weights of different Accept-* headers in content negotiation Adrien de Croy

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

MS IE protocol compatibility leads? William A. Rowe, Jr.
draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06 Adrien de Croy

Monday, 25 May 2009

Re: BNF for Cache-Control Adrien de Croy
Re: BNF for Cache-Control Julian Reschke
OT: Re: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Martin J. Dürst
Re: BNF for Cache-Control Adrien de Croy
Re: BNF for Cache-Control Julian Reschke
Re: BNF for Cache-Control Adrien de Croy

Sunday, 24 May 2009

RE: BNF for Cache-Control Brian Smith
Re: BNF for Cache-Control Julian Reschke
BNF for Cache-Control Adrien de Croy

Saturday, 23 May 2009

Re: querystring part of cache key Adrien de Croy

Friday, 22 May 2009

Re: querystring part of cache key Jamie Lokier
Re: querystring part of cache key Adrian Chadd
Re: querystring part of cache key Jamie Lokier
Re: querystring part of cache key Adrian Chadd
Re: querystring part of cache key David Morris
Re: querystring part of cache key Jamie Lokier
querystring part of cache key Adrien de Croy
Re: 12.2. Agent-driven negotiation Adrien de Croy

Thursday, 21 May 2009

RE: Use of extension-header in entity-header Brian Smith
Re: Use of extension-header in entity-header Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Use of extension-header in entity-header Julian Reschke
Re: Use of extension-header in entity-header Julian Reschke
Re: 12.2. Agent-driven negotiation Julian Reschke
12.2. Agent-driven negotiation Adrien de Croy

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

RE: Use of extension-header in entity-header Brian Smith
Re: Use of extension-header in entity-header Bjoern Hoehrmann
RE: Use of extension-header in entity-header Brian Smith
Use of extension-header in entity-header Bjoern Hoehrmann

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates David Morris
RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Jamie Lokier
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Issue 165, was: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke

Monday, 18 May 2009

RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Dan Winship
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adam Barth
TCP half-close behaviour Jamie Lokier
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
Re: CONNECT command with message body Jamie Lokier
Re: CONNECT command with message body Jamie Lokier
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
RE: Collected ABNF for HTTPbis Brian Smith
Re: Collected ABNF for HTTPbis Bjoern Hoehrmann
RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
RE: Collected ABNF for HTTPbis Brian Smith
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
Re: Collected ABNF for HTTPbis Bjoern Hoehrmann

Sunday, 17 May 2009

RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
RE: Collected ABNF for HTTPbis Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Daniel Stenberg
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Jamie Lokier
Collected ABNF for HTTPbis Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

Re: iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted David Singer

Monday, 11 May 2009

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Martin J. Dürst

Sunday, 10 May 2009

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke

Saturday, 9 May 2009

Re: Issue 164, was: Statuscodes Julian Reschke

Friday, 8 May 2009

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Geoffrey Sneddon
RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Issue 164, was: Statuscodes David Morris
Issue 164, was: Statuscodes Julian Reschke
Statuscodes Stefan Tilkov
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Adrien de Croy
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith

Thursday, 7 May 2009

Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Adrien de Croy
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Roy T. Fielding
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Julian Reschke
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Jamie Lokier
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Roy T. Fielding
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers David Morris
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Roy T. Fielding
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers David Morris

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Yves Lafon
RE: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Brian Smith
RE: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Brian Smith
RE: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Brian Smith
Re: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 80 & 79, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Henrik Nordstrom
Re: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Yves Lafon
Re: Issue 161, was: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Julian Reschke
#110: how to determine what entity a response carries Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 161, was: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Mark Nottingham
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 161, was: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Julian Reschke
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 80, was: NEW ISSUE: Content-Location vs PUT/POST Mark Nottingham
Re: i37: Vary and non-existant headers Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

RE: nested comments [was: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment] Brian Smith
Re: nested comments [was: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment] Julian Reschke
Re: nested comments [was: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment] Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: CONNECT command with message body Daniel Stenberg
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
Re: CONNECT command with message body Julian Reschke
Re: CONNECT command with message body Daniel Stenberg
Re: CONNECT command with message body Jamie Lokier
Re: CONNECT command with message body Daniel Stenberg
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
Re: CONNECT command with message body Daniel Stenberg
Re: CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
CONNECT command with message body Adrien de Croy
Re: iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted Vitaly Sharovatov
Re: iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted Mark Nottingham

Monday, 4 May 2009

Re: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Geoffrey Sneddon
Re: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: nested comments [was: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment] David Morris
Re: nested comments [was: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment] Mark Nottingham
Re: nested comments [was: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment] Bjoern Hoehrmann
nested comments [was: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment] Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 3 May 2009

RE: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Brian Smith
Re: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: Behaviour with malformed headers Julian Reschke
Re: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Julian Reschke
Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Geoffrey Sneddon
Behaviour with malformed headers Geoffrey Sneddon
Re: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Julian Reschke
RE: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Brian Smith

Saturday, 2 May 2009

Re: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Julian Reschke
Issue 161, was: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Julian Reschke
Re: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Julian Reschke
RE: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Brian Smith
RE: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Brian Smith
RE: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Brian Smith

Friday, 1 May 2009

Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Mark Nottingham
iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted Roger Pantos
Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Julian Reschke
RE: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length David Morris
RE: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Brian Smith
Re: Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Julian Reschke
Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Julian Reschke
Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 30 April 2009

Ticket 162, was: Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Julian Reschke
Ambiguity in ABNF for comment Thomas Nordin

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

Re: [rest-discuss] mnot on HTTPbis Julian Reschke

Friday, 17 April 2009

Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
URI/IRI revisions (was Re: Minutes from informal IETF/W3C meeting about HTML5 work) Alexey Melnikov
Re: Minutes from informal IETF/W3C meeting about HTML5 work Alexey Melnikov
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Noah Slater
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Sean B. Palmer
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Anne van Kesteren
Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05 Julian Reschke
Re: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.txt Julian Reschke
Re: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.txt Mark Nottingham
Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.txt Julian Reschke
Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Julian Reschke
Fwd: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.txt Mark Nottingham
Closing #85: Custom ranges Mark Nottingham
Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 16 April 2009

Re: Link Relations and languages Noah Slater
Re: Link Relations and languages Thomas Broyer
RE: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Brian Smith
RE: [i161] Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Brian Smith
Link Relations and languages Noah Slater
RE: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Brian Smith
Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Julian Reschke
Re: combining authenticated and anonymous access Mark Nottingham
Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986 Mark Nottingham
Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTP 301 responses for POST Mark Nottingham
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Re: Retry-After header on 20X response -- HTTP/1.1 spec extension? Mark Nottingham
Re: Empty host in 'http' scheme [#159] Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 12 April 2009

Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Jamie Lokier
IAT 2009 - Call for Papers - Extended Deadline wiiat@wi-consortium.org

Saturday, 11 April 2009

RE: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Brian Smith

Thursday, 9 April 2009

Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] =JeffH
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Julian Reschke
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Julian Reschke
RE: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Brian Smith
RE: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Brian Smith
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Julian Reschke
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Phil Archer
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Yves Lafon
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Adrien de Croy
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Mark Nottingham
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Adrien de Croy

Wednesday, 8 April 2009

Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Mark Nottingham
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Mark Nottingham
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Ian Hickson
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] =JeffH
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Ian Hickson
RE: Nit in section 2.1.1 of httpbis-p1 David Morris
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] =JeffH
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing =JeffH
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Ian Hickson
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Adam Barth
Re: Nit in section 2.1.1 of httpbis-p1 Mark Baker
RE: Nit in section 2.1.1 of httpbis-p1 Brian Smith
RE: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Brian Smith
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Julian Reschke
Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
Re: Users with different access rights in HTTP Authentication Julian Reschke
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Julian Reschke
Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: URI handling for Location Julian Reschke
Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: URI handling for Location Julian Reschke
Re: URI handling for Location Daniel Stenberg
Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: URI handling for Location Julian Reschke
Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Anne van Kesteren
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Mark Nottingham
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Anne van Kesteren
Re: URI handling for Location Mark Nottingham
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Mark Nottingham
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Anne van Kesteren
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Phil Archer
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Anne van Kesteren
Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Phil Archer
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Mark Nottingham
Re: [link draft] Changing the model for links Julian Reschke
RE: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Brian Smith
RE: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Yves Lafon
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Adam Barth
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Mark Nottingham
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Adam Barth
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Mark Nottingham
Re: Users with different access rights in HTTP Authentication Mark Nottingham
Re: PATCH draft Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTP over SCTP without chunked encoding Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTP pipelining - indirect security implications Mark Nottingham
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Adam Barth
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Mark Nottingham
Re: Nit in section 2.1.1 of httpbis-p1 David Morris
Re: Keep-alive header in RFC2616 [#158] Mark Nottingham
Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Adam Barth
Re: Nit in section 2.1.1 of httpbis-p1 Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP Mark Nottingham
PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155] Mark Nottingham
Re: content sniffing (and HTTP profiling) Adam Barth
Re: content sniffing (and HTTP profiling) Adam Barth
Re: content sniffing (and HTTP profiling) Ian Hickson
Re: content sniffing (and HTTP profiling) Adam Barth
Re: content sniffing (and HTTP profiling) Ian Hickson
RE: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Brian Smith
RE: URI handling for Location Brian Smith
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

Re: content sniffing (and HTTP profiling) Adam Barth
Re: content sniffing (and HTTP profiling) Mark Nottingham
[link draft] Changing the model for links Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing =JeffH
Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Anne van Kesteren
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Julian Reschke
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Julian Reschke
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Yves Lafon
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Julian Reschke
Re: Closing #90: multipart/byteranges Henrik Nordstrom
Draft minutes for IETF74 Mark Nottingham
Closing #90: multipart/byteranges Mark Nottingham
Re: URI handling for Location Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Mark Nottingham
Closing #138: The role of Warning and Semantic Transparency in Caching Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location [#154] Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location David Morris
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Ian Hickson
Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Mark Nottingham
RE: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Blake Frantz
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Martin J. Dürst
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Martin J. Dürst
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Bill McQuillan
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth

Monday, 6 April 2009

Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adrien de Croy
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Michaeljohn Clement
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Daniel Stenberg
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Ian Hickson
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adrien de Croy
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Anne van Kesteren
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Anne van Kesteren
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Lisa Dusseault
Re: Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Adam Barth
Questions about draft-abarth-mime-sniff-00 Lisa Dusseault
Re: p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06 Yves Lafon
Closing #83: OPTIONS * and proxies Mark Nottingham
Closing #77: Line folding Mark Nottingham
Closing #111: Use of TEXT Mark Nottingham
Closing #74: Character Encodings in TEXT Mark Nottingham
Closing #63: RFC2047 encoded words Mark Nottingham
Closing #30: Header LWS Mark Nottingham
Soliciting reviews for Cross-Origin Resource Sharing Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 5 April 2009

Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Tyler Close
Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Salvatore Loreto

Saturday, 4 April 2009

Re: NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP Jamie Lokier
Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Jamie Lokier
Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Jamie Lokier

Friday, 3 April 2009

Request for Review: Cross-Origin Resource Sharing Doug Schepers
Issue 153, was: case-sensitivity of weakness indicator Julian Reschke
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Julian Reschke
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing William A. Rowe, Jr.
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adrien de Croy
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Ian Hickson
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Shane McCarron

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Roy T. Fielding
Re: case-sensitivity of weakness indicator Julian Reschke
HTTP pipelining - indirect security implications Amit Klein
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Anne van Kesteren
HTTP over SCTP without chunked encoding leighton@mail.eecis.udel.edu
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Daniel Stenberg
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Roy T. Fielding
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
RE: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Preethi Natarajan (prenatar)
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adrien de Croy
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing David Morris
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
RE: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Steingruebl, Andy
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Bil Corry
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Geoffrey Sneddon
Re: NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP Salvatore Loreto
Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Jamie Lokier
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Julian Reschke
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: Minutes from informal IETF/W3C meeting about HTML5 work Martin J. Dürst
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Roy T. Fielding
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Barry Leiba
Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Baker

Last message date: Tuesday, 30 June 2009 23:53:39 UTC