ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2012 by date

Saturday, 31 March 2012

• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Kevin Cathcart
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adam Barth
• Re: Backwards compatibility Willy Tarreau
• Re: Protocols, extensions, compatibility Willy Tarreau
• Re: Protocols, extensions, compatibility Peter Lepeska
• Re: Backwards compatibility Mark Watson
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Adjusting our spec names Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mark Nottingham
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
• Re: Adjusting our spec names Mark Nottingham
• Re: Adjusting our spec names Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
• Re: Adjusting our spec names Willy Tarreau
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Backwards compatibility Amos Jeffries
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Adjusting our spec names Mark Nottingham
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Adjusting our spec names Willy Tarreau
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Willy Tarreau
• Adjusting our spec names Mark Nottingham
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Mark Nottingham
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Willy Tarreau
• Re: Backwards compatibility Mark Nottingham
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Mark Nottingham
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
• Re: Backwards compatibility Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it イアンフェッティ
• Re: Backwards compatibility Willy Tarreau
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Willy Tarreau
• Re: Backwards compatibility Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Backwards compatibility Willy Tarreau
• Re: Backwards compatibility Willy Tarreau
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Willy Tarreau
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Julian Reschke
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic tom
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Mike Belshe
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Roberto Peon
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic tom
• Re: Backwards compatibility Roberto Peon
• Re: Backwards compatibility Mark Watson
• Re: Backwards compatibility 陈智昌
• Re: Protocols, extensions, compatibility Mike Belshe

Friday, 30 March 2012

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
• Re: Backwards compatibility Mike Belshe
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Backwards compatibility Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Backwards compatibility Mark Watson
• Protocols, extensions, compatibility Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Backwards compatibility Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Mike Belshe
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Roberto Peon
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Roberto Peon
• Re: Backwards compatibility Willy Tarreau
• Re: Backwards compatibility Mark Watson
• Re: Backwards compatibility 陈智昌
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Brian Pane
• Backwards compatibility Mark Watson
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
• Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic Kevin Cathcart
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Willy Tarreau
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Mike Belshe
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Mike Belshe
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it J Ross Nicoll
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
• AW: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Tobias Oberstein
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Martin Thomson
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Ted Hardie
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Willy Tarreau
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it Brian Pane
• multiplexing -- don't do it Peter L

Thursday, 29 March 2012

• RE: Data Protection at IETF83 [HTTP2.0 SPDY] Murray S. Kucherawy
• Data Protection at IETF83 [HTTP2.0 SPDY] Henry Story
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Henry Story
• AW: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Tobias Oberstein
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Salam J
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Salam J
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Adrien W. de Croy
• AW: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Tobias Oberstein
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Yuchung Cheng
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Tobias Oberstein
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Mike Belshe
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Willy Tarreau
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Julian Reschke
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Wesley Eddy
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate Karl Dubost
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Adrien W. de Croy
• The HTTP vs SPDY debate Willy Tarreau
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Mike Belshe
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks Adrien W. de Croy
• fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks gabriel montenegro
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Robert Collins
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Henry Story
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity patrick mcmanus
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Henry Story
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Martin Thomson

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

• Re[2]: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Anthony Bryan
• New Version Notification for draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity patrick mcmanus
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Willy Tarreau
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Roberto Peon
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Roberto Peon
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #346: Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Roberto Peon
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Mike Belshe
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Martin Thomson
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Amos Jeffries
• Re: #346: Registry policies Roy T. Fielding
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity patrick mcmanus
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Roberto Peon
• Re: #346: Registry policies Julian Reschke
• Proposal for closing with no action: #247 / #322 / #266 / #340 Mark Nottingham
• #346: Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Willy Tarreau
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Julian Reschke
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Henry Story
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Henry Story
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity J Ross Nicoll
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Mark Nottingham
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Henry Story
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Willy Tarreau
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Henry Story
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Amos Jeffries
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Martin Thomson
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Martin Thomson
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Martin Thomson
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Murray S. Kucherawy
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Martin Thomson
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity Martin Thomson
• The TLS hammer and resource integrity Martin Thomson
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Martin Thomson

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Peter Saint-Andre
• draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary Murray S. Kucherawy
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day Willy Tarreau
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Robert Collins

Monday, 26 March 2012

• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day Amos Jeffries
• Re: draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00: auth schemes Mike Belshe
• RE: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Re[2]: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement Mike Belshe
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Mark Watson
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Ross Nicoll
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Ross Nicoll
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? patrick mcmanus
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Henry Story
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Mike Belshe
• Re: Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re[4]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day Mark Nottingham
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support Mark Nottingham
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Brian Pane
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day Julian Reschke
• Re: Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Mike Belshe
• HTTP 2.0/flag day Ted Hardie
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Peter Saint-Andre
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? patrick mcmanus
• #312, was: Fwd: Document Action: 'The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)' to Experimental RFC (draft-reschke-http-status-308-07.txt) Julian Reschke
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? patrick mcmanus
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Mike Belshe
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Mike Belshe
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Roy T. Fielding
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Fwd: Document Action: 'The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)' to Experimental RFC (draft-reschke-http-status-308-07.txt) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? patrick mcmanus
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-07.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Brian Pane
• Re: Re[2]: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement Willy Tarreau
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re[2]: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Brian Pane
• Re: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement Adam Barth

Sunday, 25 March 2012

• HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Julian Reschke
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Julian Reschke
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? tom
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Willy Tarreau
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Mark Nottingham
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Julian Reschke
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Barry Leiba
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Peter Saint-Andre
• SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? Poul-Henning Kamp

Saturday, 24 March 2012

• Re: editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 Julian Reschke

Sunday, 25 March 2012

• Re: editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 Julian Reschke

Saturday, 24 March 2012

• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Martin Thomson
• Re: Keep-Alive and 'max' Martin Thomson
• Re: Keep-Alive and 'max' patrick mcmanus
• Re: editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 陈智昌
• editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 Julian Reschke

Friday, 23 March 2012

• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Amos Jeffries
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Martin Thomson
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Mark Nottingham
• Keep-Alive and 'max' Martin Thomson
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Alexey Melnikov

Thursday, 22 March 2012

• Agenda for Paris Mark Nottingham
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support Zhong Yu
• Issues addressed in the -19 drafts Mark Nottingham
• Re: Working Group Last Call: httpbis p4 / p5 / p6 / p7 Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 21 March 2012

• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Mark Nottingham
• Re: WGLC issue: "Realms and scope" in p7 Mark Nottingham
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Roy T. Fielding
• draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00: auth schemes Julian Reschke
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Julian Reschke
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Willy Tarreau
• RE: Bad browser behaviour? Eric Lawrence
• RE: Bad browser behaviour? Robert Brewer
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Amos Jeffries
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Amos Jeffries
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Adrien de Croy
• Re: Re[4]: Bad browser behaviour? Adam Barth
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Mark Nottingham
• Re[4]: Bad browser behaviour? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re[4]: Bad browser behaviour? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? Adam Barth
• Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Amos Jeffries
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Amos Jeffries
• Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? Adrien W. de Croy
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? Adam Barth
• Bad browser behaviour? Adrien W. de Croy

Monday, 19 March 2012

• WG Action: RECHARTER: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) IESG Secretary
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 18 March 2012

• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 17 March 2012

• [ietf-http-wg] <none> Dang Thi Thu van
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC Julian Reschke
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC Julian Reschke

Friday, 16 March 2012

• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support Roy T. Fielding
• WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support Mark Nottingham
• WGLC issue for p7: "strength" Mark Nottingham
• WGLC review of p4-19 Mark Nottingham
• WGLC issue: "Realms and scope" in p7 Martin Thomson
• WGLC review of p5-19 Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 15 March 2012

• WGLC review of p7-19 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Working Group Last Call: httpbis p4 / p5 / p6 / p7 Julian Reschke
• Working Group Last Call: httpbis p4 / p5 / p6 / p7 Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

• Re: [whatwg] some thoughts on bring HTTP upon UDP: iWebPP - instant web p2p technology tom
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts Julian Reschke
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts Zhong Yu

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

• Re: httpbis -19 drafts Julian Reschke
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts Amos Jeffries
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts Willy Tarreau
• httpbis -19 drafts Julian Reschke

Monday, 12 March 2012

• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-19.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-19.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-19.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-06.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: #322: Origin Mark Nottingham
• Re: #338Content-Location doesn't constrain the cardinality of representations Mark Nottingham
• Re: http+aes Julian Reschke

Thursday, 8 March 2012

• Re: http+aes Jeroen van der Gun

Sunday, 11 March 2012

• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-05.txt Julian Reschke

Saturday, 10 March 2012

• #338Content-Location doesn't constrain the cardinality of representations Julian Reschke
• Re: #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields Julian Reschke

Friday, 9 March 2012

• Re: #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields Julian Reschke

Thursday, 8 March 2012

• Re: #346: Consistent Registry Policies Julian Reschke
• Re: http+aes Carsten Bormann
• Re: http+aes Anthony Bryan
• Re: #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields Mark Nottingham
• Re: #346: Consistent Registry Policies Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

• RE: http+aes Michael Wojcik
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: http+aes Michael Wojcik
• #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields Julian Reschke
• Re: #346: Consistent Registry Policies Julian Reschke
• #346: Consistent Registry Policies Julian Reschke
• Re: #247 and Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Re: http+aes Henrik Nordström
• RE: http+aes Manger, James H
• Re: http+aes Eric Rescorla
• RE: http+aes Ian Hickson

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

• Re: #247 and Registry policies Julian Reschke
• Re: #247 and Registry policies Julian Reschke
• Re: #247 and Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Re: http+aes Jim Ancona
• Re: RFC 2617 erratum on DIGEST auth Peter Saint-Andre
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pettersen-cache-context-06.txt Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)
• Re: http+aes Carsten Bormann
• Re: http+aes Willy Tarreau
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: http+aes Anne van Kesteren
• Re: http+aes Julian Reschke
• Re: #247 and Registry policies Julian Reschke
• Re: http+aes Willy Tarreau
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: http+aes Carsten Bormann
• Re: http+aes Eric J. Bowman
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: http+aes Adrien de Croy
• Re: http+aes Eric J. Bowman
• RE: http+aes Manger, James H
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: http+aes Eric J. Bowman
• Re: #247 and Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Mark Nottingham
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp

Monday, 5 March 2012

• Re: http+aes David Morris
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: #247 and Registry policies Julian Reschke
• Re: http+aes Willy Tarreau
• Re: http+aes Stefan Eissing
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: http+aes Willy Tarreau
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: http+aes Ian Hickson
• Re: http+aes Karl Dubost
• Re: http+aes Julian Reschke
• Re: http+aes Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen
• Re: http+aes Amos Jeffries
• Re: http+aes Willy Tarreau
• Re: http+aes Stefan Eissing
• Re: http+aes Anne van Kesteren
• Re: http+aes Julian Reschke
• Re: http+aes Stefan Eissing
• Re: http+aes Julian Reschke
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: http+aes Willy Tarreau
• Re: http+aes Julian Reschke
• Re: http+aes Anne van Kesteren
• Re: http+aes Poul-Henning Kamp
• http+aes Julian Reschke
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Roy T. Fielding
• #247 and Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 4 March 2012

• Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters Julian Reschke

Saturday, 3 March 2012

• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Henrik Nordström
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Amos Jeffries
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Mark Nottingham
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Mark Nottingham

Friday, 2 March 2012

• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Philippe Mougin
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Henrik Nordström
• Re: RFC 2617 erratum on DIGEST auth Henrik Nordström
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Henrik Nordström
• RFC 2617 erratum on DIGEST auth Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Henrik Nordström
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Henrik Nordström
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Willy Tarreau
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Mark Nottingham
• Re: Registry policies Julian Reschke
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Erlend Hamnaberg
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Mark Nottingham
• Re: Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Re: Registry policies Martin J. Dürst
• Re: Registry policies Adrien de Croy
• Re: Registry policies Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 1 March 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) SM
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Tim Bray
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Brian Pane
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Brian Pane
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Cache-Control: no-cache Amos Jeffries
• Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: Registry policies Julian Reschke
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Registry policies Mark Nottingham
• Cache-Control: no-cache Zhong Yu
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Brian Pane
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Amos Jeffries
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Amos Jeffries
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Martin Thomson
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Martin Thomson
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Eric Rescorla
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Amos Jeffries
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Eric Rescorla
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mark Nottingham
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mark Nottingham
• #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Amos Jeffries
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Henrik Nordström
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Henrik Nordström
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt saravanakumar Annamalaisami
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Julian Reschke
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Patrick McManus
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Carsten Bormann
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Patrick McManus
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt patrick mcmanus

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTP at a glance Julian Reschke
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: HTTP at a glance Amos Jeffries
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Roy T. Fielding
• Re: HTTP at a glance Martin Thomson
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Martin Thomson
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Carsten Bormann
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Julian Reschke
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Martin Thomson
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Amos Jeffries
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Julian Reschke
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly

Monday, 27 February 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Andrews

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

• Re: Idempotent partial updates Julian Reschke
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Eric J. Bowman
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Martin Thomson
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Amos Jeffries
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Carsten Bormann
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Zhong Yu
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Philippe Mougin
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Amos Jeffries
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Adrien de Croy
• Re: Idempotent partial updates James M Snell
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Adrien de Croy

Monday, 27 February 2012

• Re: HTTP at a glance Amos Jeffries
• Re: HTTP at a glance Roy T. Fielding
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) John C Klensin
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Julian Reschke
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: Idempotent partial updates Julian Reschke
• Idempotent partial updates Mike Kelly
• Re: HTTP at a glance Fiona Schmidtke
• Re: HTTP at a glance Amos Jeffries

Saturday, 25 February 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Doug Barton

Friday, 24 February 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Yoav Nir
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Patrik Fältström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Andrew Sullivan

Sunday, 26 February 2012

• HTTP at a glance Fiona Schmidtke
• RE: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) TEVFİK ŞAHİN
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Yoav Nir

Monday, 27 February 2012

• Re: #340: CR CR LF Mark Nottingham
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 26 February 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell

Saturday, 25 February 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham

Friday, 24 February 2012

• Re: IPRs submitted for draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy Mark Nottingham
• IPRs submitted for draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy Roberto Peon
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Patrik Fältström
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) John C Klensin
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Amos Jeffries
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Albert Lunde
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Tim Bray
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Tim Bray
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Roy T. Fielding

Thursday, 23 February 2012

• Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt Mike Belshe
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Zhong Yu
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Ben Niven-Jenkins
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Zhong Yu
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Willy Tarreau
• For review: draft-snell-additional-link-relations-00 James M Snell
• HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? Zhong Yu
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Salvatore Loreto

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Paul Hoffman
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Albert Lunde
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) David Morris
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) David Morris
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Willy Tarreau

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Amos Jeffries
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Robert Collins
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Tim Bray
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Mark Nottingham
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Adrien de Croy
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Barry Leiba
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Robert Collins
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Julian Reschke
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) Stephen Farrell
• WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) IESG Secretary
• Re: HTTP error 511 [Was: Secure (https) proxy authentification] Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP error 511 [Was: Secure (https) proxy authentification] Julian Reschke
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Henrik Nordström
• HTTP error 511 [Was: Secure (https) proxy authentification] Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Willy Tarreau
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Mark Nottingham
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Willy Tarreau
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Mark Nottingham
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Mark Nottingham

Monday, 20 February 2012

• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-03.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Yves Lafon
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-03.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Julian Reschke
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Yves Lafon
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-03.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org

Sunday, 19 February 2012

• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification Nicolas Mailhot
• Dale Anderson has lost touch and any casual acquaintances feel free to CC him (EOM) Dale Anderson
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification Amos Jeffries

Saturday, 18 February 2012

• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification Henry Story
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification Amos Jeffries
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Henrik Nordström

Friday, 17 February 2012

• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Adam Barth
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Martin Thomson
• Re: chunk-extensions Daniel Stenberg
• Re: chunk-extensions Henrik Nordström
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC Julian Reschke
• Re: chunk-extensions Zhong Yu

Thursday, 16 February 2012

• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Henrik Nordström
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Henrik Nordström
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Henrik Nordström
• Re: chunk-extensions Henrik Nordström
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Henrik Nordström

Friday, 17 February 2012

• Re: RFC format - time for an update? Martin J. Dürst

Thursday, 16 February 2012

• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification Willy Tarreau
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt Martin Thomson
• Secure (https) proxy authentification Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? Julian Reschke
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? Alexey Melnikov
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? Adrien de Croy
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? Carsten Bormann
• RFC format - time for an update? Adrien de Croy
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt Cyrus Daboo

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Yves Lafon

Monday, 13 February 2012

• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Julian Reschke
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Zhong Yu
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Amos Jeffries
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Amos Jeffries
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Willy Tarreau
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Amos Jeffries
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions Julian Reschke
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Willy Tarreau
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Mark Nottingham
• #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments Mark Nottingham
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Mark Nottingham
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions Mark Nottingham
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 11 February 2012

• Re: part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" Jonathan A Rees
• Re: part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" Amos Jeffries

Friday, 10 February 2012

• Re: part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" Jonathan A Rees
• Re: Charter revision Amos Jeffries
• Re: Charter revision Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Charter revision Julian Reschke
• Re: Charter revision Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Charter revision Mark Nottingham
• Re: Charter revision Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Charter revision Willy Tarreau
• Re: Charter revision Amos Jeffries
• Re: Charter revision Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Charter revision Robert Collins
• Charter revision Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 9 February 2012

• Re: Whitespace before responses Amos Jeffries
• Re: Whitespace before responses Zhong Yu
• Re: Whitespace before responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: Whitespace before responses Patrick McManus
• Re: Whitespace before responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: Whitespace before responses Amos Jeffries
• Re: Whitespace before responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: Whitespace before responses Amos Jeffries

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

• Issues addressed in the -18 drafts Mark Nottingham
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header James Snell
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header James Snell
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header James Snell
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions Julian Reschke
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: #342 WWW-Authenticate ABNF slightly ambiguous Julian Reschke
• Re: Whitespace before responses Willy Tarreau
• Re: Whitespace before responses Mark Nottingham
• Re: Whitespace before responses Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Whitespace before responses Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Duncan Cragg
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Martin Thomson
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Amos Jeffries
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Martin Thomson
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Adam Barth
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions Mark Nottingham
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions Julian Reschke
• #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Julian Reschke
• #343: chunk-extensions Mark Nottingham
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Martin Thomson
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Adam Barth
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Chris Weber
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Chris Weber
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Martin Thomson
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Julian Reschke
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Anne van Kesteren
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Julian Reschke
• part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" Jonathan A Rees
• #342 WWW-Authenticate ABNF slightly ambiguous Julian Reschke
• Re: chunk-extensions Daniel Stenberg
• Re: chunk-extensions Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches Amos Jeffries
• Re: #340: CR CR LF Amos Jeffries
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Amos Jeffries
• #340: CR CR LF Mark Nottingham
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Amos Jeffries
• #227: HEAD and Caches Mark Nottingham
• #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines Mark Nottingham
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Mark Nottingham
• Re: #335, was: obs-fold Amos Jeffries
• Re: Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings Mark Nottingham
• Re: Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #335, was: obs-fold Zhong Yu
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: chunk-extensions Mark Nottingham
• Re: #335, was: obs-fold Mark Nottingham
• Re: chunk-extensions Martin Thomson
• chunk-extensions Mark Nottingham
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects Martin Thomson

Monday, 6 February 2012

• #328: user Intervention on Redirects Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Carsten Bormann
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Ted Hardie
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Ted Hardie
• Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Additional HTTP Status Codes' to Proposed Standard (draft-nottingham-http-new-status-04.txt) Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Robert Collins
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Ted Hardie
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Ted Hardie
• header field value character encoding, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: #302, was: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Confusion in preconditions Henrik Nordström
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Henrik Nordström
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström

Sunday, 5 February 2012

• Re: #302, was: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) Mark Nottingham
• #302, was: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) Julian Reschke
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header Julian Reschke
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Stefan Eissing
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Manger, James H
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Anne van Kesteren

Saturday, 4 February 2012

• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Anne van Kesteren
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Bjoern Hoehrmann

Friday, 3 February 2012

• Re: Security Properties, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 2 February 2012

• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Anne van Kesteren
• Security Properties, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Confusion in preconditions Amos Jeffries

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-03.txt Julian Reschke
• "entirely determined by the URI owner(s)" Jonathan Rees
• Re: Confusion in preconditions Zhong Yu
• Re: Confusion in preconditions Zhong Yu
• Re: Confusion in preconditions Eric J. Bowman
• Re: Confusion in preconditions Amos Jeffries
• Re: Confusion in preconditions Zhong Yu
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Mark Nottingham
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Confusion in preconditions Sebastien Lambla
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? David Morris
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header Amos Jeffries
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? Poul-Henning Kamp

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header Cyrus Daboo
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header Martin Thomson
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header James Snell
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? Amos Jeffries
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header Martin Thomson
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? David Booth
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? Julian Reschke
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? Adrien de Croy
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header James Snell
• paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 Julian Reschke
• Re: Content-Disposition in PUT/POST Julian Reschke
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? Julian Reschke
• #266, was: Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings Julian Reschke
• #335, was: obs-fold Julian Reschke
• Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? David Booth
• Content-Disposition in PUT/POST Arnaud Quillaud
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis 陈智昌
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Karl Dubost
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Karl Dubost
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt Martin J. Dürst
• Re: obs-fold Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt Bjoern Hoehrmann

Monday, 30 January 2012

• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param" Julian Reschke
• Re: feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param" Bjoern Hoehrmann
• feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param" Alexei Khlebnikov
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt Bjoern Hoehrmann

Thursday, 26 January 2012

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis John Stevens

Monday, 30 January 2012

• Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings Dave Bordoley
• RE: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt Manger, James H
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Amos Jeffries
• obs-fold Zhong Yu
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Amos Jeffries

Sunday, 29 January 2012

• Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt Julian Reschke

Saturday, 28 January 2012

• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Thomas Fossati
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Petite Abeille
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Markus Lanthaler
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• I-D: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-00 Andreas Petersson
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis patrick mcmanus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Jose Mathew Manimala
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau

Friday, 27 January 2012

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis patrick mcmanus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis David Morris
• Wrapping up the Preferences Draft James Snell
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: applicability to Proxy authentication, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Jose Mathew Manimala
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: applicability to Proxy authentication, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt Amos Jeffries

Thursday, 26 January 2012

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields Robert Collins
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields Robert Collins
• applicability to Proxy authentication, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Zhong Yu
• RE: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Jeroen de Borst
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Zhong Yu
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Julian Reschke
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis 陈智昌
• Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• RE: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Jeroen de Borst
• Re: spelling, grammar, and other simple fixes Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: killing the "compress" transfer coding Julian Reschke
• killing the "compress" transfer coding Dan Winship
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields Dan Winship
• spelling, grammar, and other simple fixes Dan Winship
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Dale Anderson
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Mark Nottingham
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis John Stevens

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• RE: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Thomas Fossati
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Henrik Nordström
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Re: LINK/UNLINK James Snell
• Re: LINK/UNLINK Robert Sanderson
• RE: Rechartering HTTPbis Robert Brewer
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Patrick McManus
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Julian Reschke
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Ray Polk
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Thomas Fossati
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Amos Jeffries
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Willy Tarreau
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Carlos Prado García
• Re: LINK/UNLINK Eric J. Bowman
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: LINK/UNLINK Martin Thomson
• LINK/UNLINK James Snell
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Adrien de Croy
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis William A. Rowe Jr.
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis James Snell
• Rechartering HTTPbis Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 21 January 2012

• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Amos Jeffries
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Mark Nottingham

Friday, 20 January 2012

• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Ray Polk
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] Cameron Heavon-Jones
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Duncan Cragg
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Eric J. Bowman
• RE: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Amos Jeffries
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Eric J. Bowman
• RE: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Markus Lanthaler
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Amos Jeffries

Thursday, 19 January 2012

• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] Willy Tarreau
• Re: [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? Julian Reschke
• Re: [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? Ray Polk
• Re: [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? Julian Reschke
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] Ray Polk
• [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? Ray Polk
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] Willy Tarreau
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] Julian Reschke
• [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] Ray Polk
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Ray Polk
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Mark Nottingham
• #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements Julian Reschke
• Re: Fwd: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Eric J. Bowman
• Fwd: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Ray Polk
• Re: preparing for Paris Mark Nottingham
• Re: preparing for Paris Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Amos Jeffries
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Zhong Yu
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Karl Dubost
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Zhong Yu
• Re: preparing for Paris Peter Saint-Andre
• Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body Duncan Cragg
• Re: preparing for Paris Martin J. Dürst
• Re: preparing for Paris Karl Dubost

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Roy T. Fielding
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Ray Polk
• preparing for Paris Peter Saint-Andre

Monday, 16 January 2012

• Re: If-None-Match + Range Amos Jeffries
• Re: If-None-Match + Range Amos Jeffries
• Re: If-None-Match + Range Zhong Yu
• Re: If-None-Match + Range Roy T. Fielding
• Re: If-None-Match + Range Zhong Yu
• Re: If-None-Match + Range Amos Jeffries
• Re: If-None-Match + Range Zhong Yu
• Re: If-None-Match + Range Amos Jeffries

Sunday, 15 January 2012

• Re: If-None-Match + Range Julian Reschke

Saturday, 14 January 2012

• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Julian Reschke
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Julian Reschke
• Redirect fallback requirements (was: Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02) Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Julian Reschke
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Mykyta Yevstifeyev
• informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 Julian Reschke

Friday, 13 January 2012

• If-None-Match + Range Zhong Yu

Monday, 9 January 2012

• Re: Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 SM
• Re: Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 Roy T. Fielding
• Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 SM

Saturday, 7 January 2012

• #209, was: [new issue] p1 messaging 4.2. fails to account for requested scheme which impacts http compared to https Julian Reschke
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke

Friday, 6 January 2012

• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Roy T. Fielding
• [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? Ray Polk

Thursday, 5 January 2012

• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Adrien de Croy
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Amos Jeffries
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Yves Lafon

Wednesday, 4 January 2012

• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Amos Jeffries
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-01.txt Julian Reschke
• #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool Yves Lafon
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Martin J. Dürst
• httpbis -18 drafts Julian Reschke
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-18.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-07.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-18.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-18.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Willy Tarreau
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Amos Jeffries
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Amos Jeffries
• RE: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Larry Masinter
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Amos Jeffries

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) Julian Reschke
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Amos Jeffries

Monday, 2 January 2012

• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Amos Jeffries
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? Amos Jeffries

Sunday, 1 January 2012

• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects Julian Reschke

Last message date: Saturday, 31 March 2012 23:53:30 UTC