ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2010 by date

Friday, 31 December 2010

First part of LC for draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized summary Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Wednesday, 22 December 2010

Re: [saag] [websec] [apps-discuss] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation Phillip Hallam-Baker
Last Call on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized - summarizing first week Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: [saag] [websec] [apps-discuss] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation Phillip Hallam-Baker

Tuesday, 21 December 2010

Ликвидация предприятий (по всей Украине ) , Tue@colossus.hpl.hp.com, 21@colossus.hpl.hp.com, Dec@colossus.hpl.hp.com, 2010@colossus.hpl.hp.com, "11:24:20"@colossus.hpl.hp.com, -0300@colossus.hpl.hp.com
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps 신정식, 申政湜

Monday, 20 December 2010

Re: [saag] [websec] [apps-discuss] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation Ben Laurie

Sunday, 19 December 2010

Saturday, 18 December 2010

Re: [websec] [apps-discuss] [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Phillip Hallam-Baker
1st CFP: IJCAI-11 Workshop on Discovering Meaning On the Go in Large & Heterogeneous Data (LHD-11) Michael Chan

Friday, 17 December 2010

Thursday, 16 December 2010

Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Pipelining hinting Brian Pane
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: [saag] [websec] [kitten] [apps-discuss] HTTP authentication: the next generation der Mouse
Re: Content-Disposition next steps 신정식, 申政湜
Re: Content-Disposition next steps 신정식, 申政湜
Re: The new version of draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized (Last Call) Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: The new version of draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized (Last Call) Daniel Stenberg
Re: The new version of draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized (Last Call) Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: The new version of draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized (Last Call) Daniel Stenberg
Re: The new version of draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized (Last Call) Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Maciej Stachowiak
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: The new version of draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized (Last Call) Daniel Stenberg
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps 신정식, 申政湜
The new version of draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized (Last Call) Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: LC comments on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Tuesday, 14 December 2010

Re: LC comments on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt Mark Nottingham
Re: [apps-discuss] [saag] [websec] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation John C Klensin
Re: [http-auth] [websec] HTTP authentication: the next generation Tim Morgan
Re: LC comments on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Adam Barth
Re: Fwd: Content-Disposition and IE Julian Reschke
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Julian Reschke
Re: Fwd: Content-Disposition and IE Martin J. Dürst
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Martin J. Dürst
Re: [http-auth] [websec] [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Yutaka OIWA
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Martin J. Dürst
LC comments on draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt Mark Nottingham

Monday, 13 December 2010

Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Julian Reschke
Re: Fwd: Content-Disposition and IE Julian Reschke
Fwd: Content-Disposition and IE Mark Nottingham
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Adam Barth
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Julian Reschke
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Adam Barth
Re: [saag] [http-auth] [websec] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation Richard L. Barnes
Re: [saag] [websec] [kitten] [apps-discuss] HTTP authentication: the next generation Steven Bellovin
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Julian Reschke
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [apps-discuss] [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Tim Morgan
Re: [http-auth] [saag] [websec] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation Stephen Farrell
Re: [websec] HTTP authentication: the next generation Julian Reschke
Re: [apps-discuss] [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Dave Cridland
Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Julian Reschke
Fwd: Last Call: <draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-08.txt> ('Headers-Not-Recognized' HTTP Header Field) to Experimental RFC Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: [kitten] [apps-discuss] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Carsten Bormann
Re: [websec] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Ben Laurie
Re: [kitten] [apps-discuss] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Dave Cridland
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers Yves Lafon
Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki Adam Barth
Re: [kitten] [apps-discuss] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Adrien de Croy
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [kitten] [apps-discuss] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Dave Cridland
Re: [apps-discuss] [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Dave Raggett
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Maciej Stachowiak
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Fwd: [websec] request for feedback on adoption of drafts to WG - until Dec-16 Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 12 December 2010

Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Mark Nottingham
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Mark Nottingham
Re: [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Roy T. Fielding
Re: [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Alexey Melnikov
Re: [kitten] [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Alexey Melnikov

Saturday, 11 December 2010

Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth

Friday, 10 December 2010

Re: [saag] HTTP authentication: the next generation Paul Hoffman
Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP authentication: the next generation Mark Nottingham
HTTP authentication: the next generation Peter Saint-Andre
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-00.txt Julian Reschke
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-00.txt Alexey Melnikov
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers Julian Reschke

Thursday, 9 December 2010

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Collin Jackson
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-00.txt Julian Reschke
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade John Tamplin
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Jack Moffitt
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Adrien de Croy
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-00.txt Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Multiple Realm Authentication? Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Same Origin Policy and HTTP Authentication Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: WWW-Authenticate / Proxy-Authenticate with 200 response Yutaka OIWA

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Zhong Yu

Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade William A. Rowe Jr.

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Maciej Stachowiak
RE: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Joe Mason
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade John Tamplin
Re: Same Origin Policy and HTTP Authentication Anne van Kesteren
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Dave Cridland
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Adrien de Croy
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Willy Tarreau
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Adam Barth
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham

Monday, 6 December 2010

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: Same Origin Policy and HTTP Authentication Mark Nottingham
Re: WWW-Authenticate / Proxy-Authenticate with 200 response Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 5 December 2010

Same Origin Policy and HTTP Authentication Chirag Shah
Re: TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers Noah Mendelsohn
Re: TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers Julian Reschke

Saturday, 4 December 2010

Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth

Friday, 3 December 2010

Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth

Thursday, 2 December 2010

Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade John Tamplin
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Adam Barth
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Roy T. Fielding
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Jamie Lokier
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade William A. Rowe Jr.
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade William A. Rowe Jr.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

TAG resolution on redirection with fragment identifiers Noah Mendelsohn
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Eric J. Bowman
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Julian Reschke
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Eric J. Bowman
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Eric J. Bowman

Friday, 26 November 2010

Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Julian Reschke
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins
Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Eric J. Bowman
Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Adam Barth
workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade Greg Wilkins

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

Re: draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt Sylvain Hellegouarch
Re: draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt Sylvain Hellegouarch
Re: draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt Sylvain Hellegouarch
Re: draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt Julian Reschke
Re: Headers-Not-Recognized for HTTP Julian Reschke
draft-yevstifeyev-http-headers-not-recognized-01.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: draft-bryan-metalinkhttp-18.txt Anthony Bryan
Re: Headers-Not-Recognized for HTTP mike amundsen

Monday, 22 November 2010

Re: Headers-Not-Recognized for HTTP Adrien de Croy
Re: Headers-Not-Recognized for HTTP (was: Please review my Internet-Draft) Sylvain Hellegouarch
Headers-Not-Recognized for HTTP (was: Please review my Internet-Draft) Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft Robert Sanderson
Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft Julian Reschke
Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Re: Please Review my Internet-Draft Julian Reschke
Please Review my Internet-Draft Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Thursday, 18 November 2010

Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-18.txt> (HTTP State Management Mechanism) to Proposed Standard Peter Saint-Andre
Re: WWW-Authenticate / Proxy-Authenticate with 200 response Julian Reschke
Multiple Realm Authentication? Zhi-Qiang Lei
WWW-Authenticate / Proxy-Authenticate with 200 response Adrien de Croy

Saturday, 13 November 2010

Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Karl Dubost
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Julian Reschke
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Willy Tarreau
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Willy Tarreau
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Adrien de Croy

Friday, 12 November 2010

Memento Internet Draft Herbert van de Sompel
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04.txt Julian Reschke
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Re: Ticket 262: Discuss whether percent-decoding should also be done by receivers. Mark Nottingham
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 11 November 2010

Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Bryce Nesbitt
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Maciej Stachowiak
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

link for subscribing HTTP streaming mailing list Ning Zong

Tuesday, 9 November 2010

Re: Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Mark Nottingham
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-00.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Mike Kelly
Re: Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Mark Nottingham
Re: Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Mike Kelly
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Ticket 260: multiple disposition types, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Ticket 262: Discuss whether percent-decoding should also be done by receivers. Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Mark Nottingham
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adrien de Croy
Re: Comments on Section 6.1 Mark Nottingham
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Mark Nottingham
Re: Ticket 260: multiple disposition types, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Mark Nottingham
Re: Ticket 262: Discuss whether percent-decoding should also be done by receivers. Mark Nottingham
Re: Content-Disposition next steps Mark Nottingham
Re: P7: IANA registry for schemes (issue 141) Mark Nottingham
Re: Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Mark Nottingham

Monday, 8 November 2010

Re: Comments on Section 6.1 David Booth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: [AVT] Fw: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides Qin Wu
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Bjoern Hoehrmann

Sunday, 7 November 2010

Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adrien de Croy
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Eric J. Bowman
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adrien de Croy
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Eric J. Bowman
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Julian Reschke
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Content-Location on 200 responses Mike Kelly
Re: Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Mike Kelly
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Julian Reschke
Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Julian Reschke
Re: Content-Location on 200 responses Julian Reschke
Re: Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Julian Reschke
Re: Comments on Section 6.1 Julian Reschke
Re: [AVT] Fw: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides Ben Niven-Jenkins
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Julian Reschke
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Bjoern Hoehrmann
Content-Disposition next steps Julian Reschke
P7: IANA registry for schemes (issue 141) Julian Reschke
Meeting room change for HTTP streaming Bar BOF Qin Wu
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Julian Reschke
Fw: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides Qin Wu
Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Bjoern Hoehrmann
#243: iso-8859-1 in C-D Mark Nottingham
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Adam Barth
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Bjoern Hoehrmann

Saturday, 6 November 2010

Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Adam Barth
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Mark Nottingham
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Adam Barth
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Julian Reschke
Comments on Section 6.1 David Booth
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Mark Nottingham
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Eric J. Bowman
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Mark Nottingham
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Maciej Stachowiak
Re: Content-Location on 200 responses Nathan
Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation? Nathan

Friday, 5 November 2010

Content-Location on 200 responses Mike Kelly
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Eric J. Bowman
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Bjoern Hoehrmann

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Eric J. Bowman
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Julian Reschke
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Adam Barth
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Dan Winship
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Julian Reschke
Issue 265: Clarify that C-D spec does not apply to multipart upload Julian Reschke
Fw: [httpstreaming] Time and location for HTTP streaming bar BoF Qin Wu
Issue 263 (text about historical percent-decoding unclear), was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
RE: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt Ning Zong
Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Mark Nottingham
RE: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Thomson, Martin
[#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Re: issue 264: language tagging, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt Mark Nottingham
Re: Ticket 262: Discuss whether percent-decoding should also be done by receivers. Julian Reschke
Re: Ticket 262: Discuss whether percent-decoding should also be done by receivers. Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Eric J. Bowman
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Eric J. Bowman
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: issue 264: language tagging, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
issue 264: language tagging, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Karl Dubost
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: issue 258, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
issue 258, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Ben Niven-Jenkins
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Ticket 260: multiple disposition types, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
language tag support, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Ticket 260: multiple disposition types, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Ticket 260: multiple disposition types, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Julian Reschke
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Mark Nottingham
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Martin J. Dürst
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Ticket 262: Discuss whether percent-decoding should also be done by receivers. Adam Barth
TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined Adam Barth
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Mark Nottingham
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Bjoern Hoehrmann

Monday, 1 November 2010

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Eric J. Bowman
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Ian Hickson
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Eric J. Bowman
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Eric J. Bowman
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Eric J. Bowman
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Eric J. Bowman
Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp Adam Barth

Sunday, 31 October 2010

Re: Issue 240: Migrate Upgrade details from RFC2817 Julian Reschke

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Re: Issue 240: Migrate Upgrade details from RFC2817 Adrien de Croy
Re: Issue 240: Migrate Upgrade details from RFC2817 Julian Reschke
Re: [#203] Max-forwards and extension methods Julian Reschke

Friday, 29 October 2010

RE: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Juan M. Sierra Lebrón
RE: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Juan M. Sierra Lebrón
RE: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Juan M. Sierra Lebrón
RE: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Juan M. Sierra Lebrón
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adam Barth
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adrian Chadd
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Willy Tarreau
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Willy Tarreau
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Willy Tarreau
Fwd: RFC 5988 on Web Linking Mark Nottingham
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Eric J. Bowman
Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 28 October 2010

Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
API Rate Limits and HTTP Code Karl Dubost
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Willy Tarreau
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adam Barth
Issue 240: Migrate Upgrade details from RFC2817 Julian Reschke
Call for feedback: HTML application cache Julian Reschke
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: issue 226, "proxies not supporting certain methods" Julian Reschke
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Willy Tarreau
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adam Barth
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adam Barth
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Willy Tarreau
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adam Barth
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Willy Tarreau
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adam Barth
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Re: issue 226, "proxies not supporting certain methods" Mark Nottingham
Re: issue 226, "proxies not supporting certain methods" Julian Reschke
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Adam Barth
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) William A. Rowe Jr.
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Willy Tarreau
Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies) Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Willy Tarreau
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Willy Tarreau
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
#251 (connect bodies), was: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke

Monday, 25 October 2010

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Mark Nottingham
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Adrien de Croy
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Daniel Stenberg
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Adrien de Croy
Re: [#203] Max-forwards and extension methods Julian Reschke
Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88] Julian Reschke
httpbis -12 drafts Julian Reschke
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03.txt Julian Reschke
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-12.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-12.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-12.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-12.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-12.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org

Saturday, 23 October 2010

Re: chunk-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: [#193] Trailers and intermediaries Henrik Nordström
Re: #233: Is * usable as a request-uri for new methods? Julian Reschke
Re: [#193] Trailers and intermediaries Julian Reschke
Re: chunk-extensions Eric J. Bowman

Friday, 22 October 2010

Re: #233: Is * usable as a request-uri for new methods? Mark Nottingham
Re: #233: Is * usable as a request-uri for new methods? Julian Reschke
Re: chunk-extensions Daniel Stenberg
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Julian Reschke
Re: [#193] Trailers and intermediaries Mark Nottingham
Re: [#193] Trailers and intermediaries Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 245 (percent escaping), was: Working Group Last Call: Content-Disposition Julian Reschke
Re: chunk-extensions Daniel Stenberg
Re: chunk-extensions Daniel Stenberg
Re: chunk-extensions Willy Tarreau
Re: chunk-extensions Adrien de Croy
Re: [#193] Trailers and intermediaries Mark Nottingham
chunk-extensions Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW: #225: PUT and DELETE invalidation vs. staleness Mark Nottingham
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 245 (percent escaping), was: Working Group Last Call: Content-Disposition Nicolas Alvarez

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Re: ticket #78 (Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate) Mark Nottingham
Re: #233: Is * usable as a request-uri for new methods? Mark Nottingham
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Mark Nottingham
Re: fyi: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-15.txt Willy Tarreau
Re: fyi: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-15.txt Adam Barth
Re: fyi: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-15.txt Willy Tarreau
fyi: draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-15.txt =JeffH
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Julian Reschke
Re: #233: Is * usable as a request-uri for new methods? Julian Reschke
Issue 244 (repeated parameters), was: Working Group Last Call: Content-Disposition Julian Reschke
Issue 245 (percent escaping), was: Working Group Last Call: Content-Disposition Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Mark Nottingham
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Julian Reschke
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Eric J. Bowman
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Eric J. Bowman
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Mark Nottingham
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Mark Nottingham
Re: Content Auto-negotiation Julian Reschke
Re: Content Auto-negotiation Roy T. Fielding
Content Auto-negotiation William Waites
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Willy Tarreau
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Eric J. Bowman
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Anne van Kesteren
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Maciej Stachowiak
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Willy Tarreau
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Mark Nottingham
Re: #230: Considerations for registering new methods Eric J. Bowman
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Mark Nottingham
#233: Is * usable as a request-uri for new methods? Mark Nottingham
#229: Considerations for registering new status codes Mark Nottingham
#230: Considerations for registering new methods Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Roy T. Fielding
Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Mark Nottingham

Monday, 18 October 2010

Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Peter Saint-Andre
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Eric J. Bowman
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Mark Nottingham
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Julian Reschke
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Eric J. Bowman
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Alexey Melnikov
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Adam Barth
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Willy Tarreau
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Alexey Melnikov
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Daniel Stenberg

Sunday, 17 October 2010

Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Alexey Melnikov

Monday, 18 October 2010

Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Adrien de Croy
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Eric J. Bowman
Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Roy T. Fielding
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Mark Nottingham
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Eric J. Bowman
Re: CONNECT command with message body Willy Tarreau
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Mark Nottingham
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: CONNECT command with message body Mark Nottingham
Re: NEW ISSUE: message-body in CONNECT response Mark Nottingham
Re: [#177] Realm required on challenges Mark Nottingham
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? [#249] Mark Nottingham
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Mark Nottingham
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Adam Barth
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Mark Nottingham
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Adrien de Croy
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Mark Nottingham
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Adrien de Croy
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? David Morris
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Adrien de Croy
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? David Morris
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Mark Nottingham
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? David Morris
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Mark Nottingham
Re: Fwd: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Eric J. Bowman
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Mark Nottingham
Re: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? David Morris

Sunday, 17 October 2010

Fwd: Does no-store in request imply no-cache? Mark Nottingham
Working Group Last Call: Content-Disposition Julian Reschke

Friday, 15 October 2010

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Eric J. Bowman
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Maciej Stachowiak
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Eric J. Bowman
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Maciej Stachowiak

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Willy Tarreau

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths 陈智昌
Re: LINK/UNLINK Nathan
Re: LINK/UNLINK Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Willy Tarreau
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths William A. Rowe Jr.

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

LINK/UNLINK Nathan
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Adrien de Croy
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Willy Tarreau
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Willy Tarreau
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Adam Barth
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Adam Barth
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Julian Reschke
Re: Which headers to apply from a PUT request (Link?) Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers Julian Reschke

Monday, 11 October 2010

Which headers to apply from a PUT request (Link?) Nathan
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths 陈智昌
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Mark Nottingham
Re: Unifying & standardizing X-Moz & X-Purpose headers 蓋文彼德斯
RE: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Robert Brewer
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Adam Barth
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Bjoern Hoehrmann
Issue 248: client "Date" requirements Julian Reschke
Making 307 redirects permantent, Re: Issue 160 (Redirects and non-GET methods) Julian Reschke
Re: Date format glitch Julian Reschke
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke
Re: Date format glitch Daniel Stenberg
Re: Date format glitch Julian Reschke

Sunday, 10 October 2010

Date format glitch Daniel Stenberg

Friday, 8 October 2010

Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Adam Barth
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths 陈智昌
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Willy Tarreau
Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Maciej Stachowiak

Thursday, 7 October 2010

Re: Issue 141: "should we have an auth scheme registry" Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Re: detecting support for percent encoding in C-D, was: repeated filename parameters Julian Reschke

Monday, 4 October 2010

Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Herbert van de Sompel
Re: detecting support for percent encoding in C-D, was: repeated filename parameters Julian Reschke
Re: detecting support for percent encoding in C-D, was: repeated filename parameters William A. Rowe Jr.
detecting support for percent encoding in C-D, was: repeated filename parameters Julian Reschke
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Julian Reschke

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Bjoern Hoehrmann
Content-Disposition Mark Nottingham
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Julian Reschke
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Eric J. Bowman
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Eric J. Bowman
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Adam Barth
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Adam Barth
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Adam Barth
Re: %encoding in filename parameters. Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Julian Reschke
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Eric J. Bowman
Re: %encoding in filename parameters. Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Adam Barth
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: %encoding in filename parameters. Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: %encoding in filename parameters. Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Adam Barth
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Adam Barth
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Eric J. Bowman
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Eric J. Bowman
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Eric J. Bowman
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Willy Tarreau
%encoding in filename parameters. Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Julian Reschke
The robustness principle, as view by user agent implementors (Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02) Adam Barth
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Adam Barth
%encoding in filename parameters. Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Eric J. Bowman
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Julian Reschke
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Adam Barth
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Eric J. Bowman
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Willy Tarreau
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Julian Reschke
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Willy Tarreau
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Willy Tarreau
treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition Julian Reschke
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Moore, Jonathan
Re: Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Julian Reschke
Extending redirects to suggest updated locations ? Willy Tarreau
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Eric J. Bowman
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Eric J. Bowman
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: "refresh" header Mark Nottingham
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Eric J. Bowman
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth

Saturday, 2 October 2010

Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Eric J. Bowman

Saturday, 2 October 2010

Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Mark Nottingham
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 David Morris
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Eric J. Bowman
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Eric J. Bowman
Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Bjoern Hoehrmann
repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Julian Reschke
Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Adam Barth
Re: "refresh" header Thomas Broyer
Re: "refresh" header Julian Reschke
Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 Mark Nottingham
"refresh" header Julian Reschke
Fwd: [apps-discuss] Fwd: WG Review: Web Security (websec) Mark Nottingham

Friday, 1 October 2010

Re: I-D Action:draft-nottingham-http-portal-01.txt Thomas Broyer
Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp ? Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 160 (Redirects and non-GET methods) Julian Reschke
Re: Issue 160 (Redirects and non-GET methods) Anne van Kesteren
WGLC for draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp ? Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Friday, 31 December 2010 06:12:45 UTC