ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2011 by date

Thursday, 30 June 2011

• Re: status code for header fields to big Dzonatas Sol
• Re: status code for header fields to big Roy T. Fielding
• Re: status code for header fields to big Willy Tarreau
• status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Amos Jeffries
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Julian Reschke
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Willy Tarreau
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Willy Tarreau
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Willy Tarreau
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Adrien de Croy
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Whitespace before responses Daniel Stenberg
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Julian Reschke
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Willy Tarreau
• Re: Whitespace before responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Amos Jeffries
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Mark Nottingham
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Adrien de Croy
• Re: Whitespace before responses Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 29 June 2011

• Re: Whitespace before responses Willy Tarreau
• Whitespace before responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Karl Dubost
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Karl Dubost
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Karl Dubost
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Amos Jeffries
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Julian Reschke
• #231: Considerations for new headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: #283: Set expectations around buffering Julian Reschke
• Fwd: IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic [#254] Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

• Re: #283: Set expectations around buffering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #283: Set expectations around buffering Julian Reschke
• Re: Redirects and headers Mark Nottingham
• Redirects and headers Anne van Kesteren
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Mark Nottingham
• Re: #283: Set expectations around buffering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham

Monday, 27 June 2011

• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Dzonatas Sol

Sunday, 26 June 2011

• Re: #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Brian Pane
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Brian Pane
• Re: #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham
• Fwd: HTTPBIS - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 81 Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 25 June 2011

• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Willy Tarreau
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Willy Tarreau
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Amos Jeffries
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• RE: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Thomas Maslen
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Brian Pane
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham

Friday, 24 June 2011

• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Willy Tarreau
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements David Morris
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Brian Pane
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Brian Pane
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Willy Tarreau
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 23 June 2011

• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Mark Nottingham
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Yves Lafon
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Yves Lafon
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Amos Jeffries
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Baker

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Adrien de Croy
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Brian Pane
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Amos Jeffries
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Mark Nottingham
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Adrien de Croy
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Karl Dubost
• Re: Possible erratum in Part 1, section 9.4. Adrian Custer
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Yves Lafon
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Julian Reschke
• RE: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Fred Bohle
• Re: Possible erratum in Part 1, section 9.4. Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible erratum in Part 1, section 9.4. Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Julian Reschke
• Possible erratum in Part 1, section 9.4. Adrian Custer
• Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Mark Nottingham
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Adrien de Croy
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Adrien de Croy
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Brian Pane
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• #288: Considering messages in isolation Mark Nottingham
• #283: Set expectations around buffering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Mark Nottingham
• Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT Mark Nottingham
• #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
• #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

• Re: Content-Disposition status Julian Reschke
• Fwd: Second Last Call: <draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt> (Web Host Metadata) to Proposed Standard Peter Saint-Andre

Monday, 20 June 2011

• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Willy Tarreau
• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Adrien de Croy
• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Willy Tarreau
• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Willy Tarreau
• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Willy Tarreau
• Re: Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Poul-Henning Kamp

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

• Denial of Service using invalid Content-Length header Jan Starke

Saturday, 18 June 2011

• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Julian Reschke

Friday, 17 June 2011

• Last Call for HTML5 in the W3C Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

• [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-mime-default-charset-00.txt] Alexey Melnikov

Friday, 10 June 2011

• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 9 June 2011

• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Tim
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Adrien de Croy
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Adrien de Croy
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Paul E. Jones
• RE: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Paul E. Jones

Wednesday, 8 June 2011

• Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Breno de Medeiros
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Roy T. Fielding
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Dzonatas Sol
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Willy Tarreau
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Tim
• RE: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Julian Reschke
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Julian Reschke
• RE: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Paul E. Jones
• Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Mark Nottingham
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Randy Fischer
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams

Tuesday, 7 June 2011

• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Tim
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Ben Adida
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• RE: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Paul E. Jones
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Adam Barth
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Adam Barth
• Re: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Nico Williams
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Dzonatas Sol
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Julian Reschke
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Willy Tarreau
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Willy Tarreau
• RE: [http-state] [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Paul E. Jones

Monday, 6 June 2011

• Re: RFC 6266 on Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Mark Nottingham
• Fwd: RFC 6266 on Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Julian Reschke
• Quebec City Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 5 June 2011

• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Dzonatas Sol
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 4 June 2011

• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Dzonatas Sol
• Re: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Willy Tarreau

Friday, 3 June 2011

• p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham
• New version of Memento I-D Herbert van de Sompel
• If-Range and cache validation using Last-Modified Matthew Cox
• Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Stephen Farrell

Thursday, 2 June 2011

• Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Mark Nottingham
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Dave CROCKER
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Brian Pane
• RE: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Eran Hammer-Lahav
• Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Adam Barth
• Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

• RE: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Eran Hammer-Lahav
• Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Stephen Farrell
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Brian Pane
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Dzonatas Sol

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

• Re: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Mark Nottingham
• Re: 9.9 CONNECT (Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate?) Adrien de Croy
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: 9.9 CONNECT (Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate?) Dzonatas Sol
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• 9.9 CONNECT (Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate?) Dzonatas Sol
• #296: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Julian Reschke
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Monday, 30 May 2011

• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Roy T. Fielding
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 29 May 2011

• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Roy T. Fielding
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol

Saturday, 28 May 2011

• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol
• Re: 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Dzonatas Sol
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Brian Pane
• 203 Non-Authoritative Information: deprecate? Mark Nottingham
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Adam Barth
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Mark Nottingham
• RE: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Eric Lawrence
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Friday, 27 May 2011

• Content-Disposition status Julian Reschke
• Re: Ticket #294, was: 403 description clarifications Julian Reschke
• Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Mark Nottingham
• Re: #291: Cache Extensions can override no-store, etc. Mark Nottingham
• Re: #289: "understanding" methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #117: cache invalidation upon update Mark Nottingham
• Re: [#38] httpbis-p6-cache-14, and vary headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Adam Barth
• #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

• Re: Ticket #294, was: 403 description clarifications Julian Reschke
• Ticket #294, was: 403 description clarifications Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

• Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Julian Reschke

Monday, 23 May 2011

• Re: [TLS] Revised TLS Charter Brian Smith

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

• Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Mark Nottingham

Monday, 23 May 2011

• Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Julian Reschke

Friday, 20 May 2011

• RE: [apps-discuss] HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Eran Hammer-Lahav
• #291: Cache Extensions can override no-store, etc. Mark Nottingham
• Re: #292: Pragma Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 19 May 2011

• Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP Yves Lafon
• Re: Location, fragments, and when not to use them Julian Reschke
• Re: Location, fragments, and when not to use them Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 18 May 2011

• Location, fragments, and when not to use them Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Monday, 16 May 2011

• Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP Dzonatas Sol

Friday, 13 May 2011

• Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Dzonatas Sol
• Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Dzonatas Sol
• Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Arun Ranganathan
• Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP Dzonatas Sol
• Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Arun Ranganathan
• Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 12 May 2011

• Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Dzonatas Sol
• Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF Arun Ranganathan
• Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP Dzonatas Sol
• Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP Dzonatas Sol
• Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP Adrien de Croy
• Media Fragments spec and HTTP Mark Nottingham
• #292: Pragma Mark Nottingham
• Re: BCP for returning HTTP Authentication (2617) Error Status (questions from the OAuth WG) Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Jamie Lokier
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau
• Re: BCP for returning HTTP Authentication (2617) Error Status (questions from the OAuth WG) Julian Reschke
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Ben Niven-Jenkins
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Mark Nottingham
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Mark Nottingham
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau

Tuesday, 10 May 2011

• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Adrien de Croy
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Brian Pane
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau
• Re: On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Poul-Henning Kamp
• On the abuse of chunking for interactive usages Willy Tarreau

Monday, 9 May 2011

• HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme Eran Hammer-Lahav
• BCP for returning HTTP Authentication (2617) Error Status (questions from the OAuth WG) Eran Hammer-Lahav
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-01.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org

Saturday, 7 May 2011

• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Dzonatas Sol

Friday, 6 May 2011

• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Dzonatas Sol
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Dzonatas Sol

Thursday, 5 May 2011

• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Adrien de Croy
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Roy T. Fielding
• Re: About draft-nottingham-http-pipeline-01.txt Brian Pane
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Clarifying Pragma's introduction Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Willy Tarreau
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Poul-Henning Kamp
• Clarifying Pragma's introduction Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Poul-Henning Kamp
• #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching] Mark Nottingham
• #289: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham
• Re: httpbis-p6-cache-14, and vary headers Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Mark Nottingham
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Ben Niven-Jenkins
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Adrien de Croy
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Dzonatas Sol
• RE: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Thomson, Martin
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Thomson, Martin
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Willy Tarreau
• RE: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Thomson, Martin
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries David Morris
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Julian Reschke
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Willy Tarreau
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Mark Nottingham
• RE: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Thomson, Martin
• Re: Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Mark Nottingham
• Privacy and HTTP intermediaries Thomson, Martin

Monday, 2 May 2011

• [Fwd: Document Action: 'Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-04.txt)] Alexey Melnikov
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Daniel Stenberg
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Willy Tarreau
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP Draft-p1 and http scheme definition Mykyta Yevstifeyev
• Re: HTTP Draft-p1 and http scheme definition Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTP Draft-p1 and http scheme definition Mykyta Yevstifeyev
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham
• #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTP Draft-p1 and http scheme definition Mark Nottingham
• #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses Mark Nottingham
• #117: cache invalidation upon update Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 1 May 2011

• HTTP Draft-p1 and http scheme definition Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Friday, 29 April 2011

• DNT Header RFC Karl Dubost

Thursday, 28 April 2011

• New version of the Memento Internet Draft Herbert van de Sompel
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: p6 -14 version and ticket #274 Mykyta Yevstifeyev
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: p6 -14 version and ticket #274 Julian Reschke
• p6 -14 version and ticket #274 Mykyta Yevstifeyev
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• Heuristics and "negative caching" Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

• RE: httpbis-p6-cache-14, and vary headers Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• [#38] httpbis-p6-cache-14, and vary headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: httpbis-p6-cache-14, and vary headers Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: httpbis-p6-cache-14, and vary headers Mark Nottingham
• Issues addressed in the -14 drafts Mark Nottingham
• Re: p6-cache-13; max-age typo, editorial inconsistency Mark Nottingham
• Re: About draft-nottingham-http-pipeline-01.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: About draft-nottingham-http-pipeline-01.txt Brian Pane

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

• httpbis-p6-cache-14, and vary headers Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: IPv6 and draft-petersson-forwarded-for Dan Wing
• Re: IPv6 and draft-petersson-forwarded-for Andreas Petersson
• Re: About draft-nottingham-http-pipeline-01.txt Mark Nottingham
• IPv6 and draft-petersson-forwarded-for Dan Wing

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau

Monday, 18 April 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-14.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-14.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-14.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-14.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-14.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-14.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• httpbis -14 drafts Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson

Sunday, 17 April 2011

• Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00.txt Martin J. Dürst

Saturday, 16 April 2011

• Fwd: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Talking HTTPS to proxies Mike Belshe

Friday, 15 April 2011

• Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00.txt Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Talking HTTPS to proxies Willy Tarreau

Thursday, 14 April 2011

• Re: Talking HTTPS to proxies Adrien de Croy
• Re: Talking HTTPS to proxies 陈智昌
• Re: Talking HTTPS to proxies Adrien de Croy
• Re: Talking HTTPS to proxies Willy Tarreau
• Re: Talking HTTPS to proxies 陈智昌
• Talking HTTPS to proxies Willy Tarreau
• p6-cache-13; max-age typo, editorial inconsistency Mark Baker

Saturday, 9 April 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Willy Tarreau
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching David Morris
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Willy Tarreau
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Friday, 8 April 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Brian Pane
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching David Morris
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Julian Reschke
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Julian Reschke
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Martin J. Dürst
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Issue 178 (Content-MD5), was: Prague Minutes Julian Reschke
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham
• RE: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Thomson, Martin
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Martin J. Dürst

Thursday, 7 April 2011

• RE: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Thomson, Martin
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Matt Domsch
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Karl Dubost
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Karl Dubost
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Julian Reschke
• RE: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Poul-Henning Kamp
• I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-00.txt Andreas Petersson
• SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

• Realm requirements (issue 177) Eran Hammer-Lahav
• Issue 178 (Content-MD5), was: Prague Minutes Julian Reschke
• Fwd: RFC 6202 on Known Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTP Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

• Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Mark Nottingham
• Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Adrien de Croy
• Re: API Rate Limits and HTTP Code [#255] Karl Dubost
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code mike amundsen
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code mike amundsen
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code mike amundsen

Monday, 4 April 2011

• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code Julian Reschke
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: #20: Default charsets for text media types Martin J. Dürst
• Prague Minutes Mark Nottingham
• #20: Default charsets for text media types Mark Nottingham
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code mike amundsen

Friday, 1 April 2011

• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code mike amundsen
• Re: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code mike amundsen
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code Julian Reschke
• Re: PUT and DELETE methods in 200 code mike amundsen
• ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Manger, James H

Last message date: Thursday, 30 June 2011 23:34:42 UTC