ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2011 by date

Tuesday, 27 September 2011

• Re: Please document that successful GET constitutes a retrieval Dang Van
• Re: Status code for enforcing conditional requests Jan Algermissen

Monday, 26 September 2011

• Status code for enforcing conditional requests Jan Algermissen
• Re: Please document that successful GET constitutes a retrieval Dang Thi Thu van
• Re: Pipelining clarification Jan Algermissen
• Re: Pipelining clarification Mark Nottingham
• Re: Pipelining clarification Brian Pane
• RE: Pipelining clarification Eric Lawrence
• Pipelining clarification Jan Algermissen

Sunday, 25 September 2011

• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Willy Tarreau
• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Julian Reschke
• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Julian Reschke

Saturday, 24 September 2011

• HTTP 402 Payment Required Karl Dubost
• Re: Please document that successful GET constitutes a retrieval Julian Reschke

Thursday, 22 September 2011

• Please document that successful GET constitutes a retrieval Jonathan Rees

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

• RE: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Eric Lawrence

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Bjoern Hoehrmann

Monday, 19 September 2011

• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Karl Dubost
• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Adrien de Croy
• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Jan Algermissen
• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Jan Algermissen
• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Willy Tarreau
• OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Adrien de Croy

Saturday, 17 September 2011

• Re: Issues addressed in the -16 drafts Mark Nottingham

Monday, 12 September 2011

• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Mark Nottingham

Friday, 9 September 2011

• Re: Issues with header combination text from draft -16 William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Issues with header combination text from draft -16 Julian Reschke
• Re: Issues with header combination text from draft -16 William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Issues with header combination text from draft -16 William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Issues with header combination text from draft -16 Julian Reschke
• Issues with header combination text from draft -16 William A. Rowe Jr.

Thursday, 8 September 2011

• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Karl Dubost
• Re: I-D Action: draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-01.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Amos Jeffries

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Jan Algermissen
• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Julian Reschke
• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Jan Algermissen
• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Julian Reschke
• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Jan Algermissen
• Re: Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Julian Reschke
• Expect header 'understand' vs 'meet' Jan Algermissen

Tuesday, 6 September 2011

• Re: OWS, line-folding and quoted-string Yutaka OIWA
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: OWS, line-folding and quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: OWS, line-folding and quoted-string Willy Tarreau
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Amos Jeffries
• OWS, line-folding and quoted-string Yutaka OIWA

Monday, 5 September 2011

• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Yves Lafon

Saturday, 3 September 2011

• Re: Remaining issues related to redirects [#43 #295] Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Mark Nottingham

Friday, 2 September 2011

• Re: Remaining issues related to redirects [#43 #295] Julian Reschke
• Re: Remaining issues related to redirects [#43 #295] Julian Reschke
• Re: Remaining issues related to redirects [#43 #295] Mark Nottingham
• Re: Remaining issues related to redirects [#43 #295] Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham
• Re: Remaining issues related to redirects [#43 #295] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 1 September 2011

• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Remaining issues related to redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: #310, was: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #310, was: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Amos Jeffries
• Re: #310, was: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #310, was: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #310, was: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Karl Dubost
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Willy Tarreau
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #310, was: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: an edit for easy reading on 5.4.1 "byte ranges" Yves Lafon
• Re: idea for a helpful short discussion to add into section 5 (ranges) Yves Lafon
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Issues addressed in the -16 drafts Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issues addressed in the -15 drafts Mark Nottingham
• #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 28 August 2011

• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke

Saturday, 27 August 2011

• Re: idea for a helpful short discussion to add into section 5 (ranges) Mark Nottingham
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Mark Nottingham

Friday, 26 August 2011

• Re: IW10 Considered Harmful Brian Pane
• Re: an edit for easy reading on 5.4.1 "byte ranges" Dale Anderson
• idea for a helpful short discussion to add into section 5 (ranges) Dale Anderson
• an edit for easy reading on 5.4.1 "byte ranges" Dale Anderson
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Karl Dubost
• IW10 Considered Harmful Jim Gettys
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke

Thursday, 25 August 2011

• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Jonas Jacek

Friday, 26 August 2011

• Re: Filling out 202 Accepted Julian Reschke
• Re: Filling out 202 Accepted Mark Nottingham
• Re: Filling out 202 Accepted Julian Reschke
• Re: The use of HTTP 501 Julian Reschke
• The use of HTTP 501 Matthew Seaborn
• Re: OWS in httpbis-p1-messaging Amos Jeffries
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Karl Dubost
• Re: Filling out 202 Accepted Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 25 August 2011

• RE: DELETE and 410 Gone Thomson, Martin
• Re: 2.2 Method Registry - Not Found Julian Reschke
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Roy T. Fielding
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Roy T. Fielding
• 2.2 Method Registry - Not Found Karl Dubost
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Alexandre Morgaut
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Karl Dubost
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Roy T. Fielding
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Karl Dubost
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Roy T. Fielding
• OWS in httpbis-p1-messaging Frank Ellermann
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone J Ross Nicoll
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Alexandre Morgaut
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Karl Dubost
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Julian Reschke
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Karl Dubost
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Alexandre Morgaut
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone J Ross Nicoll
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Julian Reschke
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone J Ross Nicoll
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone Julian Reschke
• Re: DELETE and 410 Gone J Ross Nicoll
• DELETE and 410 Gone Karl Dubost
• Re: Filling out 202 Accepted Alexandre Morgaut
• httpbis -16 drafts Julian Reschke
• Re: Filling out 202 Accepted Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-16.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-16.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-16.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-16.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-16.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-02.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org

Sunday, 21 August 2011

• Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Julian Reschke

Thursday, 18 August 2011

• Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Frank Mertens
• Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Amos Jeffries
• Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Frank Mertens
• Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Frank Mertens
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Mark Nottingham
• Re: Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Amos Jeffries

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

• Ambiguities in header-field rules (p1-messaging) Frank Mertens

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

• RE: part 1 section 4.1.2 - authority form Eric Lawrence
• Re: part 1 section 4.1.2 - authority form Daniel Stenberg
• part 1 section 4.1.2 - authority form Amos Jeffries
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Monday, 15 August 2011

• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 14 August 2011

• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Saturday, 13 August 2011

• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Mark Nottingham
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Friday, 12 August 2011

• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Willy Tarreau
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Brian Pane
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Brian Pane
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Amos Jeffries
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Yngve N. Pettersen
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Willy Tarreau
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Amos Jeffries
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Darin Fisher
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Willy Tarreau
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Darin Fisher
• Re: Pipeline hinting revisited Willy Tarreau

Thursday, 11 August 2011

• Pipeline hinting revisited Brian Pane
• Filling out 202 Accepted Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

• Re: #287: LWS in auth-param ABNF Julian Reschke
• Re: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke
• Re: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke

Monday, 8 August 2011

• RE: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Manger, James H
• Re: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke
• Re: #287: LWS in auth-param ABNF Julian Reschke
• #310, was: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #287: LWS in auth-param ABNF Mark Nottingham
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 7 August 2011

• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Julian Reschke
• Re: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke

Saturday, 6 August 2011

• WWW-Authenticate ABNF is ambiguous Julian Reschke
• #287: LWS in auth-param ABNF Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke

Friday, 5 August 2011

• Re: proposed part 1 section 6.3 Dale Anderson
• Re: #309: credentials ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?) Alexey Melnikov
• Re: #309: credentials ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?) Julian Reschke
• Re: #309: credentials ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?) Julian Reschke
• Re: proposed part 1 section 6.3 Amos Jeffries
• proposed part 1 section 6.3 Dale Anderson

Thursday, 4 August 2011

• Re: IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic [#254] Julian Reschke
• Re: motivate 6.3 product tokens Dale Anderson
• motivate 6.3 product tokens Dale Anderson

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

• Re: IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic [#254] Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic [#254] Julian Reschke
• Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme name Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Julian Reschke

Monday, 1 August 2011

• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Yves Lafon

Sunday, 31 July 2011

• Re: Issue 274 (again) Mark Nottingham
• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Julian Reschke
• Issue 274 (again) Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Saturday, 30 July 2011

• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Mark Nottingham
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Willy Tarreau
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Ashok Kumar

Friday, 29 July 2011

• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Henrik Nordström
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Mark Nottingham
• Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme name Mark Nottingham
• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Mark Nottingham
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Brian Pane
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Mark Nottingham
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Ashok Kumar
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Brian Pane
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Ashok Kumar
• Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses Amos Jeffries
• Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses Eric J. Bowman

Thursday, 28 July 2011

• RE: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Manger, James H
• Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses Julian Reschke
• Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #178: Content-MD5 and partial responses Eric J. Bowman
• Re: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Brian Pane
• Re: #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme name Mark Nottingham
• Re: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke
• #308: need to reserve "negotiate" as auth scheme name Julian Reschke
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Amos Jeffries
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response Adrien de Croy
• Re: if-range requests and compressed response J Ross Nicoll
• if-range requests and compressed response Ashok Kumar
• Re: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Adrien de Croy
• RE: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Thomas Maslen
• RE: #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Manger, James H

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

• Re: line folding - ABNF vs prose Amos Jeffries
• Re: line folding - ABNF vs prose Willy Tarreau
• #195, was: ABNF for Authorization header not quite right Julian Reschke
• #309: credentials ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?) Julian Reschke
• #270: \-escaping in quoted strings Julian Reschke
• Re: line folding - ABNF vs prose Willy Tarreau
• Re: line folding - ABNF vs prose Roy T. Fielding
• Re: line folding - ABNF vs prose Willy Tarreau
• Re: line folding - ABNF vs prose Julian Reschke
• Re: Content-Range on responses other than 206 Julian Reschke
• Re: line folding - ABNF vs prose Willy Tarreau
• line folding - ABNF vs prose Julian Reschke
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Yves Lafon

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Amos Jeffries
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Yves Lafon
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Mark Nottingham
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Adrien de Croy
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Julian Reschke
• #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Mark Nottingham
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Julian Reschke
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Yutaka OIWA
• Re: Content-Range on responses other than 206 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Mark Nottingham
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Mark Nottingham
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Julian Reschke
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Willy Tarreau
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Julian Reschke
• Quebec Minutes Mark Nottingham
• #257: Considerations for new authentications schemes Julian Reschke
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Julian Reschke
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Yutaka OIWA
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Yutaka OIWA
• Re: Content-Range on responses other than 206 Yves Lafon
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Amos Jeffries
• RE: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Amos Jeffries
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Adrien de Croy
• RE: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Manger, James H

Monday, 25 July 2011

• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Amos Jeffries
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Willy Tarreau
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Julian Reschke
• Updated agenda Mark Nottingham
• Re: Tracking through cache abuse Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Tracking through cache abuse Mark Nottingham
• Tracking through cache abuse Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Julian Reschke
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Amos Jeffries
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Adrien de Croy
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Adrien de Croy
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Adrien de Croy
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Amos Jeffries
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Willy Tarreau
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Yngve N. Pettersen
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Adrien de Croy
• RE: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Manger, James H
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Amos Jeffries
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Amos Jeffries
• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Adrien de Croy
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Adrien de Croy
• RE: #177: Realm required on challenges Manger, James H

Sunday, 24 July 2011

• Re: #177: Realm required on challenges Julian Reschke
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Mark Nottingham
• #177: Realm required on challenges Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Brian Pane
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Willy Tarreau
• Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Julian Reschke
• Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Willy Tarreau
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Mark Nottingham
• #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Willy Tarreau
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Mark Nottingham
• Re: #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Willy Tarreau
• #290: Motivate one-year limit for Expires Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 23 July 2011

• Re: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) Julian Reschke

Thursday, 21 July 2011

• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Re: Warnings and SHOULD Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Yves Lafon

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

• Re: Content-Disposition status Julian Reschke
• Re: If-Range and cache validation using Last-Modified Roy T. Fielding

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

• RE: #300: Define non-final responses Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham
• Re: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) Mark Nottingham
• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Mark Nottingham
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Re: Warnings and SHOULD Mark Nottingham
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Mark Nottingham
• #304, was: If-Range and cache validation using Last-Modified Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Anne van Kesteren
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Anne van Kesteren
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Yves Lafon
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Amos Jeffries
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Eric J. Bowman
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 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 Adrien de Croy

Monday, 18 July 2011

• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Call for feedback on web origin spec (was: Fwd: [websec] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-websec-origin-02 until Aug-15) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Adam Barth
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Yves Lafon
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Amos Jeffries
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Brian Pane
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Yves Lafon
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: If-Range and cache validation using Last-Modified Yves Lafon
• RE: #300: Define non-final responses Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Greg Wilkins
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Brian Pane
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Adrien de Croy
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Amos Jeffries
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Amos Jeffries
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Adrien de Croy
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Amos Jeffries

Sunday, 17 July 2011

• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Adam Barth
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Brian Pane
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Warnings and SHOULD Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: Warnings and SHOULD Amos Jeffries
• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Chris Weber
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Willy Tarreau
• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Mark Nottingham
• Re: #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Amit Klein
• Re: Warnings and SHOULD Willy Tarreau
• Re: Warnings and SHOULD Mark Nottingham
• Re: Warnings and SHOULD Robert Collins
• Re: #285: Strength of requirements on Accept re: 406 Mark Nottingham
• #300: Define non-final responses Mark Nottingham
• Warnings and SHOULD Mark Nottingham
• #100: DNS Spoofing / Rebinding Mark Nottingham
• #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) Mark Nottingham
• #301: Content-Range on responses other than 206 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 15 July 2011

• Re: Generic semantics for the 400 status code Willy Tarreau
• Re: Generic semantics for the 400 status code Mark Nottingham
• Re: Generic semantics for the 400 status code Willy Tarreau
• Re: Content-Range on responses other than 206 Willy Tarreau
• Content-Range on responses other than 206 Mark Nottingham
• Generic semantics for the 400 status code Mark Nottingham
• Issues addressed in the -15 drafts Mark Nottingham
• Re: API Pagination limit Philippe Mougin

Thursday, 14 July 2011

• Re: API Pagination limit Eric J. Bowman
• API Pagination limit Karl Dubost
• Re: URI equivalence and query parameter sequence Dale Anderson

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

• httpbis -15 drafts Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

• Re: Content-Disposition status Julian Reschke
• Re: Content-Disposition status Mark Nottingham
• Re: Content-Disposition status Adrien de Croy

Monday, 11 July 2011

• Re: URI equivalence and query parameter sequence Bjoern Hoehrmann
• URI equivalence and query parameter sequence Darrel Miller
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-15.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-15.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-15.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-15.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-15.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• Re: Redirects and headers Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Redirects and headers Anne van Kesteren

Friday, 8 July 2011

• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-06.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org

Thursday, 7 July 2011

• RE: Whitespace before responses Eric Lawrence
• Re: 1xx response semantics Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 6 July 2011

• Re: Redirects and headers Darin Fisher
• Re: 1xx response semantics Joe Orton
• Re: 1xx response semantics Julian Reschke
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Julian Reschke
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Julian Reschke
• Re: 1xx response semantics Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: pipelining initial request series Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• pipelining initial request series Brian Pane
• pipelining initial request series Roy T. Fielding
• Re: 1xx response semantics Amos Jeffries
• Re: 1xx response semantics Julian Reschke
• Re: 1xx response semantics Brian Pane
• Re: 1xx response semantics Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

• Re: Whitespace before responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: 1xx response semantics Roy T. Fielding
• Re: 1xx response semantics Roy T. Fielding
• Re: 1xx response semantics Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: 1xx response semantics Brian Pane
• Re: 1xx response semantics Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Redirects and headers Roy T. Fielding
• Re: 1xx response semantics Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: 1xx response semantics Joe Orton
• Re: Redirects and headers Anne van Kesteren
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Adrien de Croy
• Re: 1xx response semantics Julian Reschke
• Re: 1xx response semantics Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau
• Re: 1xx response semantics Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: 1xx response semantics Amos Jeffries
• Re: 1xx response semantics Willy Tarreau

Monday, 4 July 2011

• Re: 1xx response semantics Bjoern Hoehrmann
• 1xx response semantics Mark Nottingham
• Re: Media-type containing semi-colon but no parameter Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Redirects and headers Darin Fisher
• Re: Redirects and headers Julian Reschke
• Re: Redirects and headers Mark Baker
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Julian Reschke
• Re: Redirects and headers Julian Reschke

Sunday, 3 July 2011

• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Julian Reschke

Monday, 4 July 2011

• Re: Redirects and headers Mark Baker
• Re: Media-type containing semi-colon but no parameter Julian Reschke
• Media-type containing semi-colon but no parameter Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Whitespace before responses Dale Anderson

Sunday, 3 July 2011

• Re: status code for header fields to big Dale Anderson
• help David Morris
• Re: Whitespace before responses Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: status code for header fields to big Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: status code for header fields to big Willy Tarreau
• Re: status code for header fields to big Dzonatas Sol
• Re: status code for header fields to big Willy Tarreau
• Re: status code for header fields to big Dzonatas Sol
• Re: status code for header fields to big Dzonatas Sol
• Re: status code for header fields to big Dzonatas Sol
• Re: status code for header fields to big Daniel Stenberg

Saturday, 2 July 2011

• Re: Redirects and headers Anne van Kesteren
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Mark Nottingham
• Re: status code for header fields to big Dzonatas Sol
• Re: status code for header fields to big Dzonatas Sol

Friday, 1 July 2011

• Re: status code for header fields to big Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke
• Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements Julian Reschke
• #299: status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: #288: Considering messages in isolation Mark Nottingham
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: status code for header fields to big Mark Nottingham
• FYI: Session change in Quebec City - now meeting TUESDAY AM Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Tuesday, 27 September 2011 09:23:42 UTC