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

Adam Barth

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Re[4]: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)

Adrien de Croy

• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Registry policies (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? (Thursday, 16 February)
• RFC format - time for an update? (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Thursday, 5 January)

Adrien W. de Croy

• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Protocols, extensions, compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re[2]: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re[4]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re[2]: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement (Monday, 26 March)
• HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re[4]: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re[4]: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re[2]: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)

Albert Lunde

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)

Alexei Khlebnikov

• feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param" (Monday, 30 January)

Alexey Melnikov

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Friday, 23 March)
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? (Thursday, 16 February)

Amos Jeffries

• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Friday, 23 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Saturday, 3 March)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Saturday, 3 March)
• Re: Cache-Control: no-cache (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: HTTP at a glance (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: HTTP at a glance (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: HTTP at a glance (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-03.txt (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification (Saturday, 18 February)
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #340: CR CR LF (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #335, was: obs-fold (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Confusion in preconditions (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Confusion in preconditions (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: applicability to Proxy authentication, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• RE: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? (Monday, 2 January)
• Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies? (Monday, 2 January)

Andreas Petersson

• I-D: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-00 (Saturday, 28 January)

Andrew Sullivan

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)

Anne van Kesteren

• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Thursday, 2 February)

Anthony Bryan

• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: http+aes (Thursday, 8 March)

Arnaud Quillaud

• Content-Disposition in PUT/POST (Tuesday, 31 January)

Barry Leiba

• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)

Ben Niven-Jenkins

• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Thursday, 23 February)

Bjoern Hoehrmann

• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: obs-fold (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param" (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Redirect fallback requirements (was: Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02) (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)

Brian Pane

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)

Cameron Heavon-Jones

• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] (Friday, 20 January)

Carlos Prado García

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Carsten Bormann

• Re: http+aes (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)

Chris Weber

• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)

Cyrus Daboo

• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Tuesday, 31 January)

Dale Anderson

• Dale Anderson has lost touch and any casual acquaintances feel free to CC him (EOM) (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)

Dan Winship

• killing the "compress" transfer coding (Thursday, 26 January)
• Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields (Thursday, 26 January)
• spelling, grammar, and other simple fixes (Thursday, 26 January)

Dang Thi Thu van

• [ietf-http-wg] <none> (Saturday, 17 March)

Daniel Stenberg

• Re: chunk-extensions (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)

Dave Bordoley

• Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings (Monday, 30 January)

David Booth

• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Tuesday, 31 January)

David Morris

• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)

Doug Barton

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)

Duncan Cragg

• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Friday, 20 January)
• Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Wednesday, 18 January)

Eric J. Bowman

• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Confusion in preconditions (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: LINK/UNLINK (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Fwd: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Thursday, 19 January)

Eric Lawrence

• RE: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)

Eric Rescorla

• Re: http+aes (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)

Erlend Hamnaberg

• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)

Fiona Schmidtke

• Re: HTTP at a glance (Monday, 27 February)
• HTTP at a glance (Sunday, 26 February)

gabriel montenegro

• fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)

Henrik Nordström

• Re: http+aes (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Saturday, 3 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: RFC 2617 erratum on DIGEST auth (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Saturday, 18 February)
• Re: chunk-extensions (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: chunk-extensions (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Confusion in preconditions (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Henry Story

• Data Protection at IETF83 [HTTP2.0 SPDY] (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification (Saturday, 18 February)

Ian Hickson

• RE: http+aes (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)

IESG Secretary

• WG Action: RECHARTER: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Monday, 19 March)
• WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)

internet-drafts@ietf.org

• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-19.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-19.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-19.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-03.txt (Monday, 20 February)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-18.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-07.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-18.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-18.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)

J Ross Nicoll

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)

James M Snell

• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• For review: draft-snell-additional-link-relations-00 (Thursday, 23 February)

James Snell

• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Wrapping up the Preferences Draft (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: LINK/UNLINK (Tuesday, 24 January)
• LINK/UNLINK (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Jeroen de Borst

• RE: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Thursday, 26 January)
• RE: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)

Jeroen van der Gun

• Re: http+aes (Thursday, 8 March)

Jim Ancona

• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)

John C Klensin

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)

John Stevens

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Jonathan A Rees

• Re: part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" (Friday, 10 February)
• part 2, 5.1 "the response payload is a representation of the target resource" (Tuesday, 7 February)

Jonathan Rees

• "entirely determined by the URI owner(s)" (Wednesday, 1 February)

Jose Mathew Manimala

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)

Julian Reschke

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00.txt (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: #346: Registry policies (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day (Monday, 26 March)
• #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) (Monday, 26 March)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-07.txt (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 (Saturday, 24 March)
• Re: editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 (Sunday, 25 March)
• editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 (Saturday, 24 March)
• draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00: auth schemes (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC (Saturday, 17 March)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC (Saturday, 17 March)
• Re: Working Group Last Call: httpbis p4 / p5 / p6 / p7 (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts (Tuesday, 13 March)
• httpbis -19 drafts (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-06.txt (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 12 March)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-05.txt (Sunday, 11 March)
• #338Content-Location doesn't constrain the cardinality of representations (Saturday, 10 March)
• Re: #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields (Saturday, 10 March)
• Re: #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: #346: Consistent Registry Policies (Thursday, 8 March)
• #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: #346: Consistent Registry Policies (Wednesday, 7 March)
• #346: Consistent Registry Policies (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: #247 and Registry policies (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: #247 and Registry policies (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: #247 and Registry policies (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: #247 and Registry policies (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters (Sunday, 4 March)
• Re: Registry policies (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Registry policies (Thursday, 1 March)
• #334: recipient behavior for new auth parameters (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: HTTP at a glance (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: HTTP error 511 [Was: Secure (https) proxy authentification] (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-03.txt (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Last Call: <draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt> (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)) to Experimental RFC (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-04.txt (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: #342 WWW-Authenticate ABNF slightly ambiguous (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)
• #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• #342 WWW-Authenticate ABNF slightly ambiguous (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Fwd: Protocol Action: 'Additional HTTP Status Codes' to Proposed Standard (draft-nottingham-http-new-status-04.txt) (Monday, 6 February)
• header field value character encoding, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: #302, was: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• #302, was: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Saturday, 4 February)
• Security Properties, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 2 February)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-03.txt (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Tuesday, 31 January)
• paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Content-Disposition in PUT/POST (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• #266, was: Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings (Tuesday, 31 January)
• #335, was: obs-fold (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param" (Monday, 30 January)
• Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: applicability to Proxy authentication, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt (Friday, 27 January)
• applicability to Proxy authentication, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: spelling, grammar, and other simple fixes (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: killing the "compress" transfer coding (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] (Thursday, 19 January)
• #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Sunday, 15 January)
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)
• #209, was: [new issue] p1 messaging 4.2. fails to account for requested scheme which impacts http compared to https (Saturday, 7 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Saturday, 7 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Thursday, 5 January)
• Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-01.txt (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Wednesday, 4 January)
• httpbis -18 drafts (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: issue 325: When are Location's semantics triggered?, was: Protocols/APIs and redirects (Sunday, 1 January)

Karl Dubost

• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: preparing for Paris (Wednesday, 18 January)

Kevin Cathcart

• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Friday, 30 March)

Larry Masinter

• RE: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Wednesday, 4 January)

Manger, James H

• RE: http+aes (Wednesday, 7 March)
• RE: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Sunday, 5 February)
• RE: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt (Monday, 30 January)

Mark Andrews

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Monday, 27 February)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Adjusting our spec names (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Adjusting our spec names (Saturday, 31 March)
• Adjusting our spec names (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: #346: Registry policies (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Proposal for closing with no action: #247 / #322 / #266 / #340 (Wednesday, 28 March)
• #346: Registry policies (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Friday, 23 March)
• Agenda for Paris (Thursday, 22 March)
• Issues addressed in the -19 drafts (Thursday, 22 March)
• Re: Working Group Last Call: httpbis p4 / p5 / p6 / p7 (Thursday, 22 March)
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Wednesday, 21 March)
• Re: WGLC issue: "Realms and scope" in p7 (Wednesday, 21 March)
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support (Wednesday, 21 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support (Monday, 19 March)
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support (Sunday, 18 March)
• WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support (Friday, 16 March)
• WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Friday, 16 March)
• WGLC review of p4-19 (Friday, 16 March)
• WGLC review of p5-19 (Friday, 16 March)
• WGLC review of p7-19 (Thursday, 15 March)
• Working Group Last Call: httpbis p4 / p5 / p6 / p7 (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: #322: Origin (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: #338Content-Location doesn't constrain the cardinality of representations (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: #331: clarify that 201 doesn't require Location header fields (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: #346: Consistent Registry Policies (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: #247 and Registry policies (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: #247 and Registry policies (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: #247 and Registry policies (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Tuesday, 6 March)
• #247 and Registry policies (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Saturday, 3 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Saturday, 3 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Registry policies (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Registry policies (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Registry policies (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: #340: CR CR LF (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: IPRs submitted for draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Monday, 13 February)
• #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Issues addressed in the -18 drafts (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #343: chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)
• #343: chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)
• #340: CR CR LF (Tuesday, 7 February)
• #227: HEAD and Caches (Tuesday, 7 February)
• #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Case sensitivity of Transfer-Codings (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Comments on Section 6.1 (Persistent Connections) of HTTPbis Part 1, version 17 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #335, was: obs-fold (Tuesday, 7 February)
• chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)
• #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: #302, was: #303: Generic semantics for the 400 status code (also #302) (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Security Properties, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 3 February)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: #332, was: Redirect fallback requirements (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: preparing for Paris (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: preparing for Paris (Thursday, 19 January)

Mark Watson

• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)

Markus Lanthaler

• RE: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• RE: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)
• RE: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)

Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com

• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Friday, 30 March)
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)

Martin J. Dürst

• Re: Registry policies (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: RFC format - time for an update? (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: preparing for Paris (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Wednesday, 4 January)

Martin Thomson

• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Saturday, 24 March)
• Re: Keep-Alive and 'max' (Saturday, 24 March)
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Friday, 23 March)
• Keep-Alive and 'max' (Friday, 23 March)
• WGLC issue: "Realms and scope" in p7 (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: HTTP at a glance (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-status-308-05.txt (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #238, was: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: #328: user Intervention on Redirects (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: LINK/UNLINK (Tuesday, 24 January)

Michael Wojcik

• RE: http+aes (Wednesday, 7 March)
• RE: http+aes (Wednesday, 7 March)

Mike Belshe

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Protocols, extensions, compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00: auth schemes (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Re[2]: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 23 February)

Mike Kelly

• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Monday, 27 February)
• Idempotent partial updates (Monday, 27 February)

Murray S. Kucherawy

• RE: Data Protection at IETF83 [HTTP2.0 SPDY] (Thursday, 29 March)
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Wednesday, 28 March)
• draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Tuesday, 27 March)

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

• Re: [apps-discuss] informal Last Call on draft-reschke-http-status-308-02 (Saturday, 14 January)

Nicolas Mailhot

• Re: HTTP error 511 [Was: Secure (https) proxy authentification] (Tuesday, 21 February)
• HTTP error 511 [Was: Secure (https) proxy authentification] (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification (Saturday, 18 February)
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification (Friday, 17 February)
• Secure (https) proxy authentification (Thursday, 16 February)

patrick mcmanus

• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Keep-Alive and 'max' (Saturday, 24 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Patrik Fältström

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)

Paul Hoffman

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)

Peter L

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• RE: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)

Peter Lepeska

• Re: Protocols, extensions, compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)

Peter Saint-Andre

• Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re: WGLC issue for p7: "strength" (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Fwd: Document Action: 'The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)' to Experimental RFC (draft-reschke-http-status-308-07.txt) (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: RFC 2617 erratum on DIGEST auth (Tuesday, 6 March)
• RFC 2617 erratum on DIGEST auth (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: preparing for Paris (Wednesday, 18 January)
• preparing for Paris (Tuesday, 17 January)

Petite Abeille

• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)

Philippe Mougin

• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)

Poul-Henning Kamp

• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Adjusting our spec names (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Adjusting our spec names (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Re[2]: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: http+aes (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: chunk-extensions (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity? (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 (Monday, 9 January)

Ray Polk

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] (Thursday, 19 January)
• [p2-semantics] Method Definitions - PATCH? (Thursday, 19 January)
• [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Thursday, 19 January)
• Fwd: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 6 January)

Robert Brewer

• RE: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• RE: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Robert Collins

• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields (Thursday, 26 January)

Robert Sanderson

• Re: LINK/UNLINK (Tuesday, 24 January)

Roberto Peon

• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• IPRs submitted for draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy (Friday, 24 February)

Ross Nicoll

• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Re[2]: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)

Roy T. Fielding

• Re: #346: Registry policies (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: HTTP at a glance (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: [p3-payload] Media-Type -- Two Values, One Cup Anti-Pattern? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Thursday, 5 January)

Salam J

• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)

Salvatore Loreto

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 23 February)

saravanakumar Annamalaisami

• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)

Sebastien Lambla

• Confusion in preconditions (Wednesday, 1 February)

SM

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 (Monday, 9 January)
• Section 2.7.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 (Monday, 9 January)

Stefan Eissing

• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04 (Sunday, 5 February)

Stephen Farrell

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)

Ted Hardie

• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Friday, 30 March)
• HTTP 2.0/flag day (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)

TEVFİK ŞAHİN

• RE: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)

Thomas Fossati

• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Tim Bray

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Tuesday, 21 February)

Tobias Oberstein

• AW: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Friday, 30 March)
• AW: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• AW: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)
• RE: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)

tom

• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: [whatwg] some thoughts on bring HTTP upon UDP: iWebPP - instant web p2p technology (Wednesday, 14 March)

Wesley Eddy

• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)

William A. Rowe Jr.

• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)

Willy Tarreau

• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Protocols, extensions, compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Adjusting our spec names (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Adjusting our spec names (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Thursday, 29 March)
• The HTTP vs SPDY debate (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00.txt (Wednesday, 28 March)
• New Version Notification for draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00.txt (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: The TLS hammer and resource integrity (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re: HTTP/2.0 goal: polcy enforcement (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ? (Sunday, 25 March)
• Re: Bad browser behaviour? (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: #227: HEAD and Caches (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Wednesday, 29 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Secure (https) proxy authentification (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: Charter revision (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Connection header and hop-by-hop header fields (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Header field name representation, was: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: [p1-messaging] 2.7.1. http URI scheme - [ "?" query ] (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: #295: Applying original fragment to "plain" redirected URI (also #43) (Wednesday, 4 January)

Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)

• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pettersen-cache-context-06.txt (Tuesday, 6 March)

Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen

• Re: http+aes (Monday, 5 March)

Yoav Nir

• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: WG Review: Recharter of Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis (httpbis) (Sunday, 26 February)

Yuchung Cheng

• Re: fyi: An Experimental Study of Web Transport Protocols in Cellular Networks (Thursday, 29 March)

Yves Lafon

• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Thursday, 5 January)
• #311 Add limitations to Range to reduce its use as a denial-of-service tool (Wednesday, 4 January)

Zhong Yu

• Re: WGLC Issue for p4: Optionality of Conditional Request Support (Thursday, 22 March)
• Re: httpbis -19 drafts (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Cache-Control: no-cache (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Idempotent partial updates (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Thursday, 23 February)
• HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response? (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: chunk-extensions (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: #341: whitespace in request-lines and status-lines (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: Whitespace before responses (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: #335, was: obs-fold (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Confusion in preconditions (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Confusion in preconditions (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Confusion in preconditions (Wednesday, 1 February)
• obs-fold (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Misc review notes for draft-18 p1 (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: Defining the meaning of headers associated with a request body (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: If-None-Match + Range (Monday, 16 January)
• If-None-Match + Range (Friday, 13 January)

イアンフェッティ

• Re: multiplexing -- don't do it (Saturday, 31 March)

陈智昌

• Re: Backwards compatibility (Saturday, 31 March)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: editorial feedback on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 (Saturday, 24 March)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Rechartering HTTPbis (Thursday, 26 January)

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