ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2010 by date

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Re: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Greg Wilkins

Tuesday, 29 June 2010

Re: NEW: value space of status codes [#213] Julian Reschke
Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Julian Reschke
NEW: value space of status codes [#213] Mark Nottingham
Re: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 26 June 2010

preparing new drafts for IETF 78 Julian Reschke
Re: I-D Submission: draft-lee-httpext-metadata-00.txt Hausenblas, Michael
RE: I-D Submission: draft-lee-httpext-metadata-00.txt Eran Hammer-Lahav
FW: I-D Submission: draft-lee-httpext-metadata-00.txt 이문상
Re: clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Marques Johansson

Friday, 25 June 2010

Re: clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Roy T. Fielding
Re: clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Marques Johansson
Re: clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Julian Reschke
Re: clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Julian Reschke
Re: clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Marques Johansson
Re: clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Bjoern Hoehrmann
clarity needed for browser behaviors when receiving 206 status codes Marques Johansson

Thursday, 24 June 2010

Fwd: HTTPBIS - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 78 Mark Nottingham

Monday, 21 June 2010

Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Henrik Nordström
Re: semantic equivalence of delimiters in URIs Henrik Nordström
Re: semantic equivalence of delimiters in URIs William A. Rowe Jr.

Sunday, 20 June 2010

[CSAIL #48734] AutoReply: Message received The Infrastructure Group via RT

Saturday, 19 June 2010

[CSAIL #48586] AutoReply: Re: Message received The Infrastructure Group via RT
Re: semantic equivalence of delimiters in URIs Henrik Nordström
Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Mark Nottingham

Friday, 18 June 2010

Re: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Adam Barth

Thursday, 17 June 2010

Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Henry S. Thompson
Re: semantic equivalence of delimiters in URIs William A. Rowe Jr.
semantic equivalence of delimiters in URIs Adrien de Croy

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Julian Reschke
Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 13 June 2010

Re: Managing multiple authorities, resources and representations Nathan
Re: Managing multiple authorities, resources and representations Henrik Nordström
Re: Managing multiple authorities, resources and representations Nathan
Re: Managing multiple authorities, resources and representations Henrik Nordström

Saturday, 12 June 2010

Re: 'Age' for web pages Nathan
Re: 'Age' for web pages Thomas Broyer
Re: 'Age' for web pages Merin Tresa Willy

Friday, 11 June 2010

Re: 'Age' for web pages Nathan
'Age' for web pages Merin Tresa Willy
Re: "actual content length", was: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen
Re: "actual content length", was: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Julian Reschke
Re: "actual content length", was: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Adrien de Croy
Re: "actual content length", was: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Dan Winship

Thursday, 10 June 2010

Managing multiple authorities, resources and representations Nathan

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Mark Nottingham
RE: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Thomson, Martin
Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Adrien de Croy
RE: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Thomson, Martin
IETF BoF @IETF-78 Maastricht: HASMAT - HTTP Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport =JeffH
Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Henry S. Thompson
Re: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Julian Reschke
"actual content length", was: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Julian Reschke
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Henrik Nordström
Re: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Anne van Kesteren
Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Adrien de Croy
RE: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Thomson, Martin
Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Adrien de Croy
Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt Mark Nottingham
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Adrien de Croy
Re: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Mark Nottingham
Re: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Adrien de Croy
Re: Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Nathan
Handling multiple headers when only one is allowed Bil Corry

Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Roy T. Fielding
Re: [#211] Query string cacheability Julian Reschke
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Henrik Nordström
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Henrik Nordström
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] David Morris
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Mark Nottingham
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Roy T. Fielding
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Mark Nottingham
Re: [#211] Query string cacheability Mark Nottingham
Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-core-coap-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Monday, 7 June 2010

Re: proposal for issue #178 Adrien de Croy
Re: proposal for issue #178 Roy T. Fielding
Re: proposal for issue #178 David Morris
Re: proposal for issue #178 Julian Reschke
Re: proposal for issue #178 David Morris
Re: proposal for issue #178 Henrik Nordström
Re: #168: understanding CC directives Julian Reschke
Re: proposal for issue #178 Adrien de Croy
Re: proposal for issue #178 Daniel Stenberg
Re: proposal for issue #178 Adrien de Croy
Re: proposal for issue #178 Daniel Stenberg
Re: #168: understanding CC directives Adrien de Croy
Re: proposal for issue #178 Adrien de Croy
Re: #168: understanding CC directives Julian Reschke

Thursday, 3 June 2010

Re: proposal for issue #178 Yves Lafon
Re: #168: understanding CC directives Mark Nottingham
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Mark Nottingham
Re: Revisiting Retry-After w/ 202 mike amundsen
Re: Revisiting Retry-After w/ 202 Jan Algermissen
Revisiting Retry-After w/ 202 mike amundsen

Wednesday, 2 June 2010

Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Jeffrey Mogul
HTTP Application Security (HAS) BoF Peter Saint-Andre
#122 (MIME-Version not listed in P1, general header fields) Julian Reschke
Re: #168: understanding CC directives Julian Reschke
Re: [#211] Query string cacheability Julian Reschke
Re: short-time client side caching and clock skew [#212] Mark Nottingham
#168: understanding CC directives Mark Nottingham
Re: [#211] Query string cacheability Mark Nottingham
Re: Questions (errata?) about caching authenticated responses [#174] Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

RE: short-time client side caching and clock skew Jorrit Jongma
Re: short-time client side caching and clock skew Mark Nottingham

Monday, 31 May 2010

RE: short-time client side caching and clock skew Jorrit Jongma

Sunday, 30 May 2010

Re: Duplicating request component in an HTTP authentication scheme Henrik Nordström

Saturday, 29 May 2010

Re: Broken link Julian Reschke
Broken link Thomas Hühn

Friday, 28 May 2010

Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Wenbo Zhu
Re: update: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
Re: update: http progress notification Roy T. Fielding

Thursday, 27 May 2010

Re: Duplicating request component in an HTTP authentication scheme Roy T. Fielding
Re: update: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
Duplicating request component in an HTTP authentication scheme Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: update: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: short-time client side caching and clock skew Henrik Nordström
Re: update: http progress notification Roy T. Fielding
Re: update: http progress notification Daniel Stenberg
Re: update: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: update: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
Re: update: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: update: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
short-time client side caching and clock skew Jorrit Jongma
Re: update: http progress notification Henrik Nordström

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Re: update: http progress notification Roy T. Fielding
Re: update: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Julian Reschke
Re: http progress notification Julian Reschke
Re: http progress notification Adrien de Croy

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Re: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: http progress notification David Morris
Re: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
Re: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
Re: http progress notification Elias Sinderson
Re: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
Re: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Julian Reschke
Re: http progress notification Julian Reschke
Re: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
Re: http progress notification Adrien de Croy
Re: http progress notification Henrik Nordström
http progress notification Adrien de Croy

Monday, 24 May 2010

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Dan Winship
Re: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Henrik Nordström
Re: What are "appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields" Mark Nottingham
update: http progress notification Adrien de Croy

Sunday, 23 May 2010

Re: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Mark Nottingham

Friday, 21 May 2010

RE: Query string cacheability Eric Lawrence
Re: Query string cacheability David Morris
[#211] Query string cacheability Mark Nottingham
Re: Query string cacheability Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 20 May 2010

Issue 209, was: [new issue] p1 messaging 4.2. fails to account for requested scheme which impacts http compared to https Julian Reschke
Re: Query string cacheability Julian Reschke
Re: Query string cacheability Henrik Nordström
Re: Query string cacheability Henrik Nordström
Re: Query string cacheability Roy T. Fielding
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Henrik Nordström
RE: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Thomson, Martin
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Nathan
RE: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Thomson, Martin
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Henrik Nordström
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS William A. Rowe Jr.
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Nathan
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS William A. Rowe Jr.
Re: Query string cacheability Mark Nottingham
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Nathan

Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Re: Query string cacheability Roy T. Fielding
[new issue] p1 messaging 4.2. fails to account for requested scheme which impacts http compared to https Henrik Nordström
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Nathan
Re: Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Henrik Nordström
RE: Query string cacheability Eric Lawrence
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Same resource exposed over HTTP and HTTPS Nathan
Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Julian Reschke
Re: Query string cacheability Julian Reschke
Query string cacheability Mark Nottingham
Re: TAG requests addition to section 3.2.1 of Part 3 [#155] Mark Nottingham
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Julian Reschke
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Daniel Stenberg
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Henrik Nordström
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Henrik Nordström
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Jamie Lokier
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Jamie Lokier
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Jamie Lokier

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: 304 updating ETag Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke

Monday, 17 May 2010

Re: proposal for issue #178 Henrik Nordström
Re: proposal for issue #178 Yves Lafon
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Henrik Nordström
304 updating ETag Adrien de Croy
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Wenbo Zhu

Sunday, 16 May 2010

Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Adrien de Croy
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Joe Orton
Re: Missing specification in RFC 2617, cannot use a user name nor a password in encoding different from ISO-8859-1 Henrik Nordstrom
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Henrik Nordstrom
Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Julian Reschke
Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Julian Reschke

Monday, 3 May 2010

Missing specification in RFC 2617, cannot use a user name nor a password in encoding different from ISO-8859-1 Honza Bambas

Saturday, 15 May 2010

Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Henrik Nordström
Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Bil Corry
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Wenbo Zhu
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Henrik Nordström
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Henrik Nordström

Friday, 14 May 2010

Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Wenbo Zhu
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Wenbo Zhu
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Wenbo Zhu
Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location header Roy T. Fielding
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Roy T. Fielding
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Henrik Nordström
Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location header Henrik Nordström
Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location header Roy T. Fielding
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Roy T. Fielding
Re: FYI Cache-control deployment Henrik Nordström
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Henrik Nordström
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Jamie Lokier
RE: Clarification on use of Content-Location header Henrik Nordström
RE: Clarification on use of Content-Location header Houghton,Andrew
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Henrik Nordström
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Adrien de Croy
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Henrik Nordström
RE: Multiple challenges in a single WWW-Authenticate header field Henrik Nordström
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Henrik Nordström
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Joe Orton
Re: Cache behavior for authenticated contents Henrik Nordström
Re: Expect: 100-continue and proxies Henrik Nordström
Re: one time passwords from private keys Henrik Nordström
Re: What are "appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields" Henrik Nordström
RE: What are "appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields" Henrik Nordström
Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Henrik Nordström
Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages") Wenbo Zhu

Thursday, 13 May 2010

Re: Clarification on use of Content-Location header Yves Lafon
Clarification on use of Content-Location header Houghton,Andrew

Monday, 10 May 2010

Fwd: [http-state] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-08 ? Julian Reschke

Sunday, 9 May 2010

Re: 300 Multiple Choices and safe methods Henrik Nordström
Re: proposal for issue #178 Henrik Nordström
Re: proposal for issue #175 range flooding Henrik Nordström
Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Henrik Nordström
Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Julian Reschke
Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Henrik Nordström
Re: 3 short questions, Entity Tag & Content Location Henrik Nordström

Friday, 7 May 2010

Re: ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Julian Reschke

Thursday, 6 May 2010

ticket 208, Re: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Julian Reschke
Fwd: RFC 5861 on HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale Content Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 4 May 2010

Monday, 3 May 2010

Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Henrik Nordström
Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Henrik Nordström
Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Henrik Nordström
Re: In support of sending fragment IDs to the server (issue #43) Adrien de Croy
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Henrik Nordström
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Henrik Nordström
Re: 100 Continue and Expects Henrik Nordström
In support of sending fragment IDs to the server (issue #43) Bert Bos

Friday, 30 April 2010

Re: Protocol Action: 'Character Set and Language Encoding for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Parameters' to Proposed Standard Julian Reschke
Labs/Weave/Identity/Account Manager/Spec/Latest - MozillaWiki Julian Reschke
Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-12.txt Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Re: is rfc2616 the right document to study Julian Reschke
is rfc2616 the right document to study transkawa
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
RE: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Thomson, Martin

Monday, 26 April 2010

Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke

Friday, 23 April 2010

RE: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Thomson, Martin
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 22 April 2010

Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
RE: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Daniel Stenberg
Re: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Julian Reschke
RE: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Eran Hammer-Lahav
Re: Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Julian Reschke
Explicit instructions on use of fragment in request URI Eran Hammer-Lahav

Tuesday, 20 April 2010

Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Wenbo Zhu

Monday, 19 April 2010

Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Jamie Lokier
Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Mark Nottingham
Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Jamie Lokier
Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Mark Nottingham
Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Wenbo Zhu
Re: clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Jamie Lokier

Friday, 16 April 2010

Thursday, 15 April 2010

clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages Wenbo Zhu
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Mark Nottingham
Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Wenbo Zhu

Wednesday, 14 April 2010

Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Roy T. Fielding

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Wenbo Zhu
Re: Issue 196, was: #110: how to determine what entity a response carries Julian Reschke
Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Mark Nottingham
Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Wenbo Zhu

Monday, 12 April 2010

Issue 200 ("word" in ABNF), was: suggestions for examples and explication wrt ABNF and header fields in draft-ietf-httpbis-p1 Julian Reschke

Sunday, 11 April 2010

Re: Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Mark Nottingham
Transfer-Encoding in a HEAD response Wenbo Zhu

Saturday, 10 April 2010

RE: pack200-gzip Content Coding Brian Smith
Re: How many coding registries should we have? (Issue 143), was: Issue 189, Re: Content/Transfer-Codings organization/IANA considerations (issue 143, 188, 189) Julian Reschke
Re: pack200-gzip Content Coding Julian Reschke

Friday, 9 April 2010

RE: pack200-gzip Content Coding Brian Smith
Re: pack200-gzip Content Coding David Nuescheler
Re: How many coding registries should we have? (Issue 143), was: Issue 189, Re: Content/Transfer-Codings organization/IANA considerations (issue 143, 188, 189) Julian Reschke
Re: How many coding registries should we have? (Issue 143), was: Issue 189, Re: Content/Transfer-Codings organization/IANA considerations (issue 143, 188, 189) Mark Nottingham
Re: pack200-gzip Content Coding Julian Reschke
Re: How many coding registries should we have? (Issue 143), was: Issue 189, Re: Content/Transfer-Codings organization/IANA considerations (issue 143, 188, 189) Julian Reschke
Re: pack200-gzip Content Coding Mark Nottingham
Re: How many coding registries should we have? (Issue 143), was: Issue 189, Re: Content/Transfer-Codings organization/IANA considerations (issue 143, 188, 189) Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 8 April 2010

Wednesday, 7 April 2010

Re: Issue 165, was: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Yves Lafon
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Nathan
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Jamie Lokier
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Jamie Lokier
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Yves Lafon
Ticket 183: "requested resource" in content-encoding definition Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Jamie Lokier
Issue 101, was: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Yves Lafon
Re: Age response header and HTTP/1.0 requests Adrien de Croy
Re: Age response header and HTTP/1.0 requests Mark Nottingham
Age response header and HTTP/1.0 requests Adrien de Croy

Saturday, 3 April 2010

Fwd: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-link-header-09.txt Mark Nottingham

Friday, 2 April 2010

Re: 100 Continue and Expects Mark Pauley
Re: 100 Continue and Expects Jamie Lokier
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Nathan
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Jamie Lokier
Re: Issue 165, was: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Yves Lafon

Thursday, 1 April 2010

Re: 100 Continue and Expects Mark Pauley
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Jamie Lokier
Re: #73: httpbis and deflate compression... Mark Nottingham
Re: #73: httpbis and deflate compression... Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg Julian Reschke
Re: 100 Continue and Expects Adrien de Croy
Re: 100 Continue and Expects Jamie Lokier

Last message date: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 21:03:01 UTC