ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2009 by date

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adrien de Croy
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing David Morris
• 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 Mark Baker
• Re: NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP Barry Leiba
• RE: NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP Dan Wing
• Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Adam Barth
• case-sensitivity of weakness indicator Julian Reschke
• Issue 152: range unit in Range header for custom ranges, was: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
• Re: Minutes from informal IETF/W3C meeting about HTML5 work Mark Nottingham
• Re: Minutes from informal IETF/W3C meeting about HTML5 work Martin J. Dürst
• Re: NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP Barry Leiba
• RE: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Preethi Natarajan (prenatar)
• Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Fred Baker
• NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP Mark Nottingham
• Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Roy T. Fielding

Monday, 30 March 2009

• NEW ISSUE: content sniffing Mark Nottingham
• Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Fred Baker
• RE: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Preethi Natarajan (prenatar)
• Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 David Morris
• Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Fred Baker
• Pipelining in HTTP 1.1 Preethi Natarajan (prenatar)
• New mailing list: hybi (HTTP "long poll" and related protocols) Mark Nottingham
• Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions Julian Reschke
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Drop Content-Location Julian Reschke
• Re: Correct status code for unknown transfer-encoding Julian Reschke
• Re: Correct status code for unknown transfer-encoding Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
• Re: URI handling for Location Daniel Stenberg
• Re: Correct status code for unknown transfer-encoding Julian Reschke
• URI handling for Location Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Correct status code for unknown transfer-encoding Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Correct status code for unknown transfer-encoding Julian Reschke
• Minutes from informal IETF/W3C meeting about HTML5 work Mark Nottingham
• Re: p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06 Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 26 March 2009

• Nit in section 2.1.1 of httpbis-p1 Barry Leiba
• Re: HTTPbis meeting agenda, participation details Julian Reschke
• HTTPbis meeting agenda, participation details Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

• Re: p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06 Yves Lafon

Thursday, 12 March 2009

• p6-caching: commentary from -05 to -06 Mark Nottingham
• Re: i58: What identifies an HTTP resource Roy T. Fielding
• i58: What identifies an HTTP resource Robert Brewer
• Re: comments on caching rewrite Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

• comments on caching rewrite Dan Winship

Tuesday, 10 March 2009

• Re: required behaviour of client when abortive disconnect Julian Reschke
• Re: [oauth] OAuth and HTTP proxies George Fletcher
• -06 drafts, was: HTTPbis status Julian Reschke
• OAuth and HTTP proxies Eran Hammer-Lahav

Monday, 9 March 2009

• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-06.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-06.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-06.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-06.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-06.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-06.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• Keep-alive header in RFC2616 Adrien de Croy
• Re: required behaviour of client when abortive disconnect Adrien de Croy
• Re: required behaviour of client when abortive disconnect Robert Siemer
• required behaviour of client when abortive disconnect Adrien de Croy

Saturday, 7 March 2009

• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-security-properties-03.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org

Friday, 6 March 2009

• ABNF conversiov (issue 36), was: HTTPbis status Julian Reschke
• HTTPbis status Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
• Re: Clarifying Content-Location for POST/PUT/other methods, was: Cache key history (see also issue 136) Mark Nottingham

Monday, 2 March 2009

• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Albert Lunde
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Adrien de Croy
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Vincent Murphy
• Re: comments on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: Clarifying Content-Location for POST/PUT/other methods, was: Cache key history (see also issue 136) Thomas Broyer
• Clarifying Content-Location for POST/PUT/other methods, was: Cache key history (see also issue 136) Julian Reschke
• Re: Cache key history Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 1 March 2009

• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Albert Lunde
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Julian Reschke
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Vincent Murphy
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 28 February 2009

• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Vincent Murphy
• Re: comments on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Vincent Murphy
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Julian Reschke
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Vincent Murphy

Friday, 27 February 2009

• Re: comments on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04 Julian Reschke

Thursday, 26 February 2009

• Re: comments on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04 Mark Nottingham
• RE: comments on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04 Robert Brewer
• comments on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Mark Nottingham
• Re: Coming to a conclusion on draft-abarth-origin Adam Barth
• Re: Extension headers and caching Mark Nottingham
• Coming to a conclusion on draft-abarth-origin Mark Nottingham
• RE: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Larry Masinter

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

• Re: CERT VU#435052 - intercepting proxy vulnerability Amit Klein
• Re: CERT VU#435052 - intercepting proxy vulnerability Joe Orton
• FYI: Link -04 Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

• Re: CERT VU#435052 - intercepting proxy vulnerability David Morris
• Re: CERT VU#435052 - intercepting proxy vulnerability Roy T. Fielding

Monday, 23 February 2009

• CERT VU#435052 - intercepting proxy vulnerability Mark Nottingham
• Re: Users with different access rights in HTTP Authentication Julian Reschke
• Re: Users with different access rights in HTTP Authentication David Morris
• Re: Users with different access rights in HTTP Authentication Julian Reschke
• Fwd: I-D Action:draft-jennings-http-srv-01.txt Mark Nottingham

Monday, 16 February 2009

• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Albert Lunde

Sunday, 15 February 2009

• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Vincent Murphy

Saturday, 14 February 2009

• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Adrien de Croy
• RE: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Robert Brewer
• Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Hausenblas, Michael
• Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment Vincent Murphy

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

• Re: Empty host in 'http' scheme Julian Reschke
• Empty host in 'http' scheme Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Origin vs Authority; use of HTTPS (draft-nottingham-site-meta-01) Adam Barth
• Re: Origin vs Authority; use of HTTPS (draft-nottingham-site-meta-01) Thomas Roessler
• Re: Origin vs Authority; use of HTTPS (draft-nottingham-site-meta-01) Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 10 February 2009

• Re: Extension headers and caching Julian Reschke
• Re: Extension headers and caching Julian Reschke
• Re: Extension headers and caching Adrian Chadd
• RE: Extension headers and caching Eric Lawrence
• Re: Origin vs Authority; use of HTTPS (draft-nottingham-site-meta-01) Adam Barth
• Origin vs Authority; use of HTTPS (draft-nottingham-site-meta-01) Thomas Roessler

Monday, 9 February 2009

• Re: Extension headers and caching Julian Reschke
• Extension headers and caching Anne van Kesteren

Friday, 6 February 2009

• Re: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Mark Nottingham
• RE: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Brian Smith
• Re: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Jonathan Rees
• RE: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Robert Brewer
• Re: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Roy T. Fielding
• Re: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Mark Nottingham
• Re: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology Jonathan Rees

Thursday, 5 February 2009

• Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986 Jonathan Rees

Wednesday, 4 February 2009

• Re: PATCH draft Lisa Dusseault
• Re: PATCH draft David Morris
• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
• Re: PATCH draft Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986 Julian Reschke
• Re: Weak ETag handling Jamie Lokier
• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 3 February 2009

• Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986 Jonathan Rees
• Re: Weak ETag handling Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Weak ETag handling David Morris
• Weak ETag handling Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Yves Lafon
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Julian Reschke
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Mark Nottingham
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham

Monday, 2 February 2009

• Re: PATCH draft Lisa Dusseault
• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
• Content-Location, was: PATCH draft Julian Reschke

Sunday, 1 February 2009

• Re: Proposal: 3xx (Unauthorized, See Other) status Thomas Broyer

Saturday, 31 January 2009

• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Amit Klein

Friday, 30 January 2009

• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Mark Nottingham
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: PATCH draft Roy T. Fielding
• New issue: Clarify when Referer is sent #144 Mark Nottingham
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
• Re: PATCH draft James M Snell
• Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986 Jonathan Rees
• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
• Re: PATCH draft Cyrus Daboo
• RE: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Robert Brewer
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
• Re: PATCH draft Cyrus Daboo
• Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986 Julian Reschke
• Re: PATCH draft Cyrus Daboo
• Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986 Jonathan Rees
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Thomas Broyer
• Re: PATCH draft Julian Reschke
• Re: Feedback on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03, was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03 Julian Reschke
• Re: Feedback on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03, was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Julian Reschke
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Mark Nottingham
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Mark Nottingham
• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" William A. Rowe, Jr.

Thursday, 29 January 2009

• Re: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Eran Hammer-Lahav
• RE: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Robert Brewer
• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Julian Reschke
• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Dan Winship
• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Julian Reschke
• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" William A. Rowe, Jr.
• Re: GET/HEAD support "MUST" Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 28 January 2009

• GET/HEAD support "MUST" Geoffrey Sneddon

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

• Re: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Mark Nottingham
• Re: PATCH draft James M Snell
• Re: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Phil Archer
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adrien de Croy
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• RE: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Larry Masinter
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adrien de Croy
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adrien de Croy
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Emilio Casbas
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth

Monday, 26 January 2009

• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Robert Sayre
• PATCH draft Lisa Dusseault
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Thomas Broyer
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth

Sunday, 25 January 2009

• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adrien de Croy
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Peter
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Jamie Lokier
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Bil Corry
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Peter

Saturday, 24 January 2009

• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Bil Corry
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Robert Sayre
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Ian Hickson
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Bil Corry
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Robert Sayre
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Robert Sayre
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Roy T. Fielding
• multipart/byteranges - was A question about Content-Length header Adrien de Croy
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Adrien de Croy

Friday, 23 January 2009

• RE: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Eran Hammer-Lahav
• RE: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Eran Hammer-Lahav
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Peter
• Re: A question about Content-Length header David Morris
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Adrien de Croy
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Peter
• Re: Origin header for safe methods other than GET/HEAD, was: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: Origin header for safe methods other than GET/HEAD, was: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Julian Reschke
• Re: Origin header for safe methods other than GET/HEAD, was: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Ian Hickson
• Origin header for safe methods other than GET/HEAD, was: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Julian Reschke
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Daniel Stenberg

Thursday, 22 January 2009

• RE: [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / question eduardo.casais@areppim.com

Friday, 23 January 2009

• Re: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Andreas Sewe
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token David Morris
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Julian Reschke
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adrien de Croy
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) William A. Rowe, Jr.
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) William A. Rowe, Jr.
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adam Barth
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Adrien de Croy
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / question Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Proposal: 3xx (Unauthorized, See Other) status Mark Nottingham
• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Mark Nottingham
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 22 January 2009

• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Mark Nottingham
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) William A. Rowe, Jr.
• Re: The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Roy T. Fielding
• The HTTP Origin Header (draft-abarth-origin) Larry Masinter
• Re: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Phil Archer
• RE: [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / question Eran Hammer-Lahav
• RE: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Eran Hammer-Lahav
• Re: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Phil Archer
• Re: Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Mark Baker
• Re: A question about Content-Length header Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

• Re: [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / question eduardo.casais@areppim.com
• A question about Content-Length header ?

Thursday, 22 January 2009

• Use of Link rel+type for application discovery Eran Hammer-Lahav
• Re: [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / question Martin Duerst
• Re: Two new IDs of relevance to this working group Mark Nottingham
• Two new IDs of relevance to this working group Ian Hickson

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

• Re: Review of Content-Encoding: value token Roy T. Fielding
• Re: [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / question Roy T. Fielding
• A question about Content-Length header & Transfer Coding ?
• Review of Content-Encoding: value token Carine Bournez
• [W3C BPWG] HTTP header fields X-* and normal ones / question eduardo.casais@areppim.com

Monday, 19 January 2009

• Proposal: 3xx (Unauthorized, See Other) status Thomas Broyer

Friday, 16 January 2009

• Status update / San Francisco meeting / etc. Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 14 January 2009

• Re: Status of RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP (Experimental) Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 13 January 2009

• Request for feedback: HTTP-based Resource Descriptor Discovery Eran Hammer-Lahav
• Status of RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in HTTP (Experimental) Eran Hammer-Lahav

Monday, 12 January 2009

• Re: Providing two-way communication back to a server from a Web page Mark Baker

Saturday, 10 January 2009

• Re: Providing two-way communication back to a server from a Web page Jamie Lokier

Friday, 9 January 2009

• RE: Providing two-way communication back to a server from a Web page Robert Brewer
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-00.txt Adam Roach
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-00.txt Kris Zyp
• Providing two-way communication back to a server from a Web page Ian Hickson

Wednesday, 7 January 2009

• Re: HTTPOnly Cookies Specification Bil Corry
• Re: Metalink XML Download Description Format (draft-bryan-metalink-01) Anthony Bryan

Tuesday, 6 January 2009

• Re: Cookie-based HTTP Authentication (draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth-00) Thomas Broyer

Monday, 5 January 2009

• Re: Retry-After header on 20X response -- HTTP/1.1 spec extension? Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Retry-After header on 20X response -- HTTP/1.1 spec extension? Bryce Nesbitt
• Cookie-based HTTP Authentication (draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth-00) Thomas Broyer

Friday, 2 January 2009

• Re: link relationship registration Asbjørn Ulsberg
• Fwd: I-D Action:draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 22:03:22 UTC