ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2011 by date

Saturday, 31 December 2011

• Re: lower casing host names Roy T. Fielding
• Re: lower casing host names Adam Barth
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: lower casing host names Anne van Kesteren
• Re: lower casing host names Daniel Stenberg
• Re: OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Amos Jeffries
• Re: lower casing host names Adam Barth

Friday, 30 December 2011

• Re: lower casing host names Adrien de Croy
• Re: lower casing host names Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke
• Re: lower casing host names Dale Anderson
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• lower casing host names Daniel Stenberg
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Willy Tarreau
• Re: Getting to Last Call Willy Tarreau
• Re: Getting to Last Call Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Getting to Last Call Mark Nottingham
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Larry Masinter
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Julian Reschke

Sunday, 25 December 2011

• Re: Getting to Last Call Willy Tarreau
• Re: OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Julian Reschke
• Re: OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Amos Jeffries

Saturday, 24 December 2011

• Re: Getting to Last Call Mark Nottingham
• OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Mark Nottingham
• Re: #322: Origin Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

• Re: Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2616 (3056) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2616 (3056) Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 Willy Tarreau
• RE: Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 Jonathan Billington

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

• Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2616 (3056) Peter Saint-Andre
• New version of Memento Internet Draft Herbert van de Sompel
• RE: Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 Jonathan Billington
• Re: Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 Dan Winship
• Re: #185: Location header payload handling Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 Willy Tarreau
• Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 Jonathan Billington

Monday, 19 December 2011

• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• #312 (should there be a permanent variant of 307), was: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-00.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Alex Rousskov
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell

Sunday, 18 December 2011

• Re: #327: Expect syntax Willy Tarreau
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke

Saturday, 17 December 2011

• Re: #327: Expect syntax Willy Tarreau
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Amos Jeffries
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Willy Tarreau
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Willy Tarreau
• RFC5987bis parmsyntax, was: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Julian Reschke
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Willy Tarreau
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Willy Tarreau
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke

Friday, 16 December 2011

• Re: #327: Expect syntax Alex Rousskov
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Alex Rousskov
• Re: #185: Location header payload handling Julian Reschke
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt> (Additional HTTP Status Codes) to Proposed Standard Julian Reschke
• Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt> (Additional HTTP Status Codes) to Proposed Standard Riccardo Bernardini
• Fwd: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03.txt> (Additional HTTP Status Codes) to Proposed Standard Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Getting to Last Call 陈智昌
• Re: Getting to Last Call Julian Reschke
• RE: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Larry Masinter
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Jan Algermissen
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs David Morris

Thursday, 15 December 2011

• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Mark Nottingham
• RE: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Larry Masinter
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: Negotiated private cache storage allocation Mike Kelly
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: Getting to Last Call Amos Jeffries
• Re: Getting to Last Call Willy Tarreau
• Re: Getting to Last Call Amos Jeffries
• Re: Getting to Last Call Willy Tarreau
• Re: #322: Origin Adam Barth
• Re: Getting to Last Call Peter Saint-Andre
• Getting to Last Call Mark Nottingham
• Re: fya: Flickr: GirlieMac's stuff tagged with http Dale Anderson
• Re: #185: Location header payload handling Mark Nottingham
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Alex Rousskov

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

• Re: fya: Flickr: GirlieMac's stuff tagged with http Julian Reschke
• Re: #329: header field considerations: quoted-string vs use of double quotes Julian Reschke
• Re: fya: Flickr: GirlieMac's stuff tagged with http Mark Nottingham
• Re: #329: header field considerations: quoted-string vs use of double quotes Mark Nottingham
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: Negotiated private cache storage allocation Mike Kelly
• Re: Negotiated private cache storage allocation Mark Nottingham
• Re: #322: Origin Mark Nottingham
• Re: Negotiated private cache storage allocation Mark Nottingham
• Re: #327: Expect syntax Alex Rousskov
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Daniel Stenberg
• Re: Negotiated private cache storage allocation Mike Kelly
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: Negotiated private cache storage allocation Amos Jeffries
• #327: Expect syntax, was: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Negotiated private cache storage allocation Mike Kelly
• #329: header field considerations: quoted-string vs use of double quotes Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Willy Tarreau
• Re: #322: Origin Julian Reschke
• Re: #322: Origin Roy T. Fielding
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Daniel Stenberg
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• fya: Flickr: GirlieMac's stuff tagged with http =JeffH
• Re: #322: Origin Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Willy Tarreau
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• #185: Location header payload handling Mark Nottingham
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Willy Tarreau
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• #322: Origin Mark Nottingham
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: "Accept" on 415 responses? Thomas Fossati
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• RE: Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP Matthew Fenelon
• Re: "Accept" on 415 responses? Willy Tarreau
• Re: "Accept" on 415 responses? Amos Jeffries
• Re: "Accept" on 415 responses? mike amundsen
• Re: "Accept" on 415 responses? Amos Jeffries

Monday, 12 December 2011

• Re: "Accept" on 415 responses? mike amundsen
• Re: "Accept" on 415 responses? Amos Jeffries
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• "Accept" on 415 responses? Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Alex Rousskov

Saturday, 10 December 2011

• Re: best status code for bad auth method Dale Anderson
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Martin Thomson
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Mark Nottingham

Friday, 9 December 2011

• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Herbert van de Sompel
• Re: I-D Action: draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-03.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Amos Jeffries
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Yutaka OIWA
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Adrien de Croy
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Daniel Stenberg
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Mark Nottingham
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Adrien de Croy
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Adrien de Croy
• Re: best status code for bad auth method Mark Nottingham
• best status code for bad auth method Adrien de Croy

Thursday, 8 December 2011

• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP Julian Reschke
• Re: Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP David Morris
• Re: Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP Julian Reschke
• Re: Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP David Morris
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Karl Dubost
• RE: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Larry Masinter
• Re: I-D Action: draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-03.txt James Snell
• Re: Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP Karl Dubost
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-03.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Julian Reschke
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Karl Dubost
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Anne van Kesteren
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: #311: Denial of Service and Ranges Yves Lafon
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Roy T. Fielding

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

• Re: [apps-discuss] Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Mark Nottingham
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE mike amundsen
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Alex Rousskov
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Anne van Kesteren
• RE: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Willy Tarreau
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• RE: Prefer Draft Feedback Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Amos Jeffries
• Re: HTTP header field syntax [WAS: Re: Prefer Draft Feedback] Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTP header field syntax [WAS: Re: Prefer Draft Feedback] Amos Jeffries
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Anne van Kesteren
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTP header field syntax [WAS: Re: Prefer Draft Feedback] Julian Reschke
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTP header field syntax [WAS: Re: Prefer Draft Feedback] Dale Anderson
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Mark Nottingham
• Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Alex Rousskov
• Re: #311: Denial of Service and Ranges Mark Nottingham
• HTTP header field syntax [WAS: Re: Prefer Draft Feedback] Amos Jeffries
• RE: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Markus Lanthaler
• RE: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Mark Nottingham
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Roy T. Fielding

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Martin Thomson
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Alex Rousskov
• Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Sam Johnston
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP Julian Reschke
• Feedback sought on timezone header for HTTP Matthew Fenelon
• Re: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Alex Rousskov
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Alex Rousskov
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Amos Jeffries
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: Protocols/APIs and redirects Anne van Kesteren
• Protocols/APIs and redirects Anne van Kesteren
• RE: Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Markus Lanthaler
• Partially fulfilled / draft-nottingham-http-new-status Markus Lanthaler
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell

Monday, 5 December 2011

• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Julian Reschke
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Willy Tarreau
• Re: Issue 166: clarify term "User Agent" and resolve inconsistencies with W3C specs Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: Discussion Place for CGI/1.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Discussion Place for CGI/1.1 Mark Nottingham
• Re: status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• Re: Discussion Place for CGI/1.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Mark Nottingham
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• Re: [apps-discuss] Discussion Place for CGI/1.1 Mark Nottingham
• Discussion Place for CGI/1.1 Yutaka OIWA
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Mark Nottingham
• Re: status code for header fields to big Mark Nottingham
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 4 December 2011

• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: ID draft-petersson-forwarded-for-02.txt Andreas Petersson

Saturday, 3 December 2011

• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Alex Rousskov
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Dmitry Kurochkin
• Re: Prefer Draft Feedback Julian Reschke
• Re: #255 and #299: Status code semantics Julian Reschke
• Re: status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• #293: Interaction of request and response Cache-Control Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Mark Nottingham
• Re: #274: Warn-code registry Mark Nottingham

Friday, 2 December 2011

• #255 and #299: Status code semantics Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Prefer Draft Feedback James Snell
• Re: status code for header fields to big Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: status code for header fields to big Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: status code for header fields to big Julian Reschke
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: status code for header fields to big Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-00.txt Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Julian Reschke
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE mike amundsen
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Adrien de Croy

Thursday, 1 December 2011

• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Patrick McManus
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE Mark Nottingham
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE Julian Reschke
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE mike amundsen
• Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE Mark Nottingham
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Fwd: Re: Restoring PUT and DELETE Julian Reschke
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Alex Rousskov
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Adrien de Croy
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: #274: Warn-code registry Julian Reschke
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Adrien de Croy
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Willy Tarreau
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Dmitry Kurochkin
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Amos Jeffries
• Re: #274: Warn-code registry Amos Jeffries
• Re: clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Amos Jeffries
• #274: Warn-code registry Mark Nottingham
• #212: Refining Age for proxy chains Mark Nottingham
• clarify some MUST requirements in HTTPbis part 1 section 3.3 Dmitry Kurochkin

Monday, 28 November 2011

• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Amos Jeffries
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Amos Jeffries
• Re: #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Willy Tarreau
• #158: Proxy-Connection and Keep-alive Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 27 November 2011

• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Mark Nottingham
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Harald Alvestrand
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Harald Alvestrand
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Amos Jeffries

Saturday, 26 November 2011

• Re: #324: URI includes query Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Julian Reschke

Friday, 25 November 2011

• Re: #314: realm parameter syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Julian Reschke

Thursday, 24 November 2011

• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Harald Alvestrand
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Martin J. Dürst
• Re: #311: Denial of Service and Ranges Adrien de Croy
• Re: #311: Denial of Service and Ranges Dale Anderson
• Re: #311: Denial of Service and Ranges Robert Collins
• Re: #311: Denial of Service and Ranges William A. Rowe Jr.
• #311: Denial of Service and Ranges Mark Nottingham
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Dale Anderson

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Amos Jeffries
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Harald Alvestrand
• Re: Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Julian Reschke
• Possible issue: Accept-language priority based on language order Harald Alvestrand

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

• Re: ID draft-petersson-forwarded-for-02.txt Andreas Petersson

Sunday, 20 November 2011

• Re: #314: realm parameter syntax Julian Reschke
• Re: #314: realm parameter syntax Yutaka OIWA
• #314: realm parameter syntax Julian Reschke

Friday, 18 November 2011

• Re: ID draft-petersson-forwarded-for-02.txt Amos Jeffries

Thursday, 17 November 2011

• ID draft-petersson-forwarded-for-02.txt Andreas Petersson

Monday, 14 November 2011

• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Randall Gellens
• Re: Target maturity level for HTTPbis Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Target maturity level for HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Yutaka OIWA
• Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt TianLinyi
• Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 13 November 2011

• Target maturity level for HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• RFC 2617 erratum Peter Saint-Andre

Saturday, 12 November 2011

• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Dale Anderson

Friday, 11 November 2011

• Re: Unicode in HTTP headers (was Re: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values) Dale Anderson
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Julian Reschke
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Julian Reschke
• Re: #324: URI includes query Julian Reschke
• #324: URI includes query Mark Nottingham
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Mark Nottingham
• Re: issue 11: URI includes query Julian Reschke
• issue 11: URI includes query Dmitry Kurochkin
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Julian Reschke

Thursday, 10 November 2011

• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Alexander Dutton
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Moore, Jonathan (CIM)
• Re: #321: Repeating auth-params Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 9 November 2011

• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Alexander Dutton
• The "Bearer" Authentication Scheme (draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Mark Nottingham
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Sam Johnston
• Additional HTTP Status Codes - "Request Too Onerous" Alexander Dutton

Tuesday, 8 November 2011

• #321: Repeating auth-params Julian Reschke

Saturday, 5 November 2011

• Re: [foaf-protocols] HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Henry Story
• Issues addressed in the -17 drafts Mark Nottingham
• RE: [foaf-protocols] HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Peter Williams
• Re: [foaf-protocols] HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Joe Presbrey
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Willy Tarreau
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Julian Reschke
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Willy Tarreau
• Re: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching Mark Nottingham
• Re: [foaf-protocols] HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Mark Nottingham
• Re: [foaf-protocols] HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Peter Williams
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Mark Nottingham

Friday, 4 November 2011

• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Julian Reschke
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Yves Lafon
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Julian Reschke
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 3 November 2011

• Re: HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Yutaka OIWA
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Yutaka OIWA
• Re: HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods bergi
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Julian Reschke
• Re: #160: Redirects and non-GET methods Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Julian Reschke
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Mark Nottingham
• RE: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Manger, James H
• Re: HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 1 November 2011

• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke

Monday, 31 October 2011

• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Yutaka OIWA
• Re: Unicode in HTTP headers (was Re: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values) Mark Nottingham
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Yutaka OIWA
• httpbis -17 drafts Julian Reschke
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-17.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-17.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-17.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-17.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-17.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-17.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Julian Reschke
• Unicode in HTTP headers (was Re: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values) Sam Johnston
• Re: HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods Dominik Tomaszuk
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Mark Nottingham
• RE: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Manger, James H
• RE: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Thomson, Martin
• RE: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values David Morris
• RE: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Manger, James H
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Mark Nottingham
• Re: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 30 October 2011

• json-string for HTTP header field parameter values Manger, James H
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• The priority of Content-Encoding and Content-Range Zhi-Qiang Lei

Saturday, 29 October 2011

• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Willy Tarreau
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Yutaka OIWA
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Willy Tarreau
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Mark Nottingham
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Adrien de Croy
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Mark Baker

Friday, 28 October 2011

• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Mark Nottingham
• Re: #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Yves Lafon

Thursday, 27 October 2011

• #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307? Julian Reschke
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Julian Reschke
• Content-Range on responses other than 206 Yves Lafon
• #320: add advice on defining auth scheme parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• [#319] Case sensitivity in p5 Yves Lafon
• OWS before chunk Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Julian Reschke
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Håkan
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Julian Reschke
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Håkan
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Julian Reschke
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Håkan
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Julian Reschke
• Re: #318, was: Closing the connection Julian Reschke
• Re: #318, was: Closing the connection Mark Nottingham
• Re: #318, was: Closing the connection Roy T. Fielding

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: #318, was: Closing the connection Mark Nottingham
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Mark Nottingham
• draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 1.2.1 ABNF Extension: #rule – Invalid example? Håkan
• Re: draft-snell-http-prefer James Snell
• Re: #318, was: Closing the connection Julian Reschke
• #318, was: Closing the connection Julian Reschke
• Re: #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Julian Reschke
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After James Snell
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After Mark Nottingham
• Re: Closing the connection Mark Nottingham

Monday, 24 October 2011

• Re: #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Mark Nottingham
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After James Snell
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #306: does etag value really use quoted-string Julian Reschke
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After James Snell
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After Julian Reschke
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After James Snell
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After Julian Reschke
• Re: #300: Define non-final responses Julian Reschke
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After James Snell
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After Julian Reschke
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After James Snell
• Re: #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Julian Reschke
• Re: 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After Julian Reschke
• 202 Accepted, Location, and Retry-After James Snell
• Re: #297: p1 7.2.4: retrying requests Julian Reschke
• Closing the connection Julian Reschke

Sunday, 23 October 2011

• Re: #186: Document HTTP's error-handling philosophy Julian Reschke
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Mark Nottingham
• Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 22 October 2011

• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 21 October 2011

• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Roy T. Fielding

Thursday, 20 October 2011

• RE: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Thomson, Martin
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Dan Anderson
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Dan Anderson
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 James Snell
• Re: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Roy T. Fielding
• RE: Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Thomson, Martin
• Additional HTTP Status Codes - draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02 Dan Anderson
• Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-new-status-02.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Is the ABNF for <request-target> in HTTPbis too general? Roy T. Fielding

Friday, 14 October 2011

• Is the ABNF for <request-target> in HTTPbis too general? Adrian Custer

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

• Re: draft-snell-http-prefer James Snell

Monday, 17 October 2011

• [#317] Cache-Control directive case sensitivity Mark Nottingham
• Re: draft-snell-http-prefer Mark Nottingham
• Re: Cache-Control directive case sensitivity David Morris
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: draft-snell-http-prefer James Snell
• Re: Cache-Control directive case sensitivity Sam Johnston
• Re: Cache-Control directive case sensitivity Julian Reschke
• Cache-Control directive case sensitivity Mark Nottingham
• RE: draft-snell-http-prefer Thomson, Martin
• Re: draft-snell-http-prefer James Snell

Sunday, 16 October 2011

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

Friday, 14 October 2011

• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• RE: #231: Considerations for new headers Manger, James H

Thursday, 13 October 2011

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

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

• Re: Feedback on draft-sigurdsson-anti-ddos-http-throttling Jói Sigurðsson
• Re: Feedback on draft-sigurdsson-anti-ddos-http-throttling Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Darrel Miller

Monday, 10 October 2011

• Re: Feedback on draft-sigurdsson-anti-ddos-http-throttling Jói Sigurðsson

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

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

Monday, 10 October 2011

• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Mark Nottingham
• RE: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Thomson, Martin
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: #231: Considerations for new headers Julian Reschke
• Feedback on draft-sigurdsson-anti-ddos-http-throttling Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 5 October 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Darrel Miller

Saturday, 8 October 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: Proxy-Authorization with empty credentials Willy Tarreau

Friday, 7 October 2011

• Re: IPV6 literal URL format mention might be useful Dale Anderson
• Re: IPV6 literal URL format mention might be useful Julian Reschke
• IPV6 literal URL format mention might be useful Dale Anderson
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Andreas Petersson
• draft-snell-http-prefer Mark Nottingham
• RE: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Thomson, Martin
• RE: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Thomson, Martin

Thursday, 6 October 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Thomson, Martin
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 5 October 2011

• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Andreas Petersson
• Re: I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• I-D draft-petersson-forwarded-for-01.txt Andreas Petersson
• Proxy-Authorization with empty credentials Adrien de Croy

Tuesday, 4 October 2011

• Re: OT re HTTP auth disassocation of credentials Yutaka OIWA

Sunday, 2 October 2011

• Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths 陈智昌
• Re: [#95] Multiple Content-Lengths Julian Reschke

Last message date: Saturday, 31 December 2011 19:38:50 UTC