ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2013 by date

Saturday, 28 December 2013

• #540 clarify ABNF layering Julian Reschke

Friday, 27 December 2013

• RE: Any HTTP/2.0 browser/server available for test Mike Bishop
• Any HTTP/2.0 browser/server available for test chenyl@arraynetworks.com.cn

Monday, 23 December 2013

• Re: 8.1.2 Examples (Re: 6.6 PUSH_PROMISE (Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08 / 5.1. Stream States)) Martin Thomson

Saturday, 21 December 2013

• #541, use of "word" ABNF production Julian Reschke
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Jeff Pinner
• Re: #528, Redundant rule? quoted-str-nf Roy T. Fielding

Thursday, 19 December 2013

• Re: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Roy T. Fielding

Sunday, 15 December 2013

• Http 2 Vlad Avdeev

Thursday, 19 December 2013

• Re: [Gen-art] [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Jari Arkko
• Re: [Gen-art] spec size and organization, was: Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Jari Arkko
• Re: [Gen-art] #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations Jari Arkko
• RE: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25 Moriarty, Kathleen
• Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25 Jari Arkko
• 6.6 PUSH_PROMISE (Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08 / 5.1. Stream States) Kari Hurtta
• Re: 6.6 PUSH_PROMISE (Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08 / 5.1. Stream States) Martin Thomson
• Re: 6.6 PUSH_PROMISE (Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08 / 5.1. Stream States) Martin Thomson
• Re: Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: authenticated unencrypted Martin Thomson
• Re: authenticated unencrypted Yoav Nir
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Michael Sweet
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Joseph Lorenzo Hall
• Re: Is more than 7bits EOS padding or full EOS sequence in huffman byte string subject to compression error? Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Matthew Kerwin
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Martin J. Dürst
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Eliot Lear
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: authenticated unencrypted Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: authenticated unencrypted Matthew Kerwin
• Re: authenticated unencrypted Patrick McManus
• Re: authenticated unencrypted Martin Thomson
• Re: Zurich Agenda - adjustment? Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

• authenticated unencrypted Matthew Kerwin
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Stephen Farrell
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Eliot Lear
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations - missing Secure method Martin Thomson
• Re: Is more than 7bits EOS padding or full EOS sequence in huffman byte string subject to compression error? Roberto Peon
• Re: Is more than 7bits EOS padding or full EOS sequence in huffman byte string subject to compression error? Jeff Pinner
• Is more than 7bits EOS padding or full EOS sequence in huffman byte string subject to compression error? Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Eliot Lear
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations - missing Secure method Julian Reschke
• draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations - missing Secure method Amos Jeffries

Monday, 16 December 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Stephen Farrell
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Martin Thomson
• Fwd: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Julian Reschke
• RE: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Yoav Nir
• Re: #528, Redundant rule? quoted-str-nf Simon Yarde
• Re: #528, Redundant rule? quoted-str-nf Julian Reschke
• Re: #528, Redundant rule? quoted-str-nf Simon Yarde
• RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Christian Huitema
• RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Christian Huitema

Sunday, 15 December 2013

• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Stephen Farrell
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Yoav Nir
• RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Christian Huitema

Saturday, 14 December 2013

• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Adrian Cole
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Brian Smith
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Brian Smith
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Tim Bray
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Stephen Farrell
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Paul Hoffman
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Paul Hoffman
• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Martin Thomson

Friday, 13 December 2013

• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Chris Burdess
• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Howard Johnson
• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Martin Thomson
• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Daniel Stenberg
• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Nico Williams
• Re: disabling header compression Peter Lepeska
• Re: disabling header compression Peter Lepeska
• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) David Morris
• Re: Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) James M Snell
• Non-browser uses (was Re: disabling header compression) Martin Thomson
• Re: disabling header compression James M Snell
• Re: disabling header compression Martin Thomson
• Re: disabling header compression Patrick McManus
• Re: disabling header compression Chris Burdess
• Re: disabling header compression David Morris
• Re: disabling header compression Patrick McManus
• Re: disabling header compression Peter Lepeska
• Re: disabling header compression Patrick McManus
• Re: disabling header compression James M Snell
• Re: disabling header compression Peter Lepeska
• Re: disabling header compression Peter Lepeska
• Re: Trailer bug Simon Yarde
• #528, Redundant rule? quoted-str-nf Julian Reschke
• Re: #527, Question for the editors about draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-25 Julian Reschke
• Redundant rule? quoted-str-nf Simon Yarde
• Trailer bug Simon Yarde
• #527, Question for the editors about draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-25 Julian Reschke
• Question for the editors about draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-25 Amos Jeffries
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 12 December 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: disabling header compression Roberto Peon
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: disabling header compression Roberto Peon
• Re: disabling header compression David Morris
• Re: disabling header compression Matthew Kerwin
• Re: disabling header compression Roberto Peon
• Re: disabling header compression Amos Jeffries
• Announcing DNSNMC - fixes the HTTPS authentication problem using Namecoin Tao Effect
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Eliot Lear
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Adrien de Croy
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt 陈智昌
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Paul Hoffman
• Re: disabling header compression Roberto Peon
• Re: disabling header compression David Morris
• Re: disabling header compression Peter Lepeska
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Patrick McManus
• Re: disabling header compression Michael Sweet
• Re: disabling header compression James M Snell
• Re: disabling header compression Roberto Peon
• disabling header compression Peter Lepeska
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Peter Lepeska
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Salvatore Loreto
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Salvatore Loreto
• Re: Proxy User Stories Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• RE: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• FYI: Using ALPN protocol IDs in Web Perf specs Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Paul Hoffman
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Ted Hardie
• Zurich Agenda - adjustment? Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Chris Burdess
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• RE: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Yoav Nir
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Chris Burdess
• Re: Proxy User Stories Nicolas Mailhot
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-02.txt Mark Nottingham
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-01.txt Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 10 December 2013

• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Amos Jeffries
• RE: Explicit proxy options and defaults Amos Jeffries
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Martin Thomson
• Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults Martin Thomson
• Re: non-tls http2 client has to send settings twice? Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Peter Lepeska
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Peter Lepeska
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Michael Sweet
• RE: Explicit proxy options and defaults Yoav Nir
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Patrick McManus
• Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults Ilari Liusvaara
• non-tls http2 client has to send settings twice? Dan Winship
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Chris Burdess
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Chris Burdess
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Albert Lunde
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Amos Jeffries
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Stephen Farrell
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Mark Nottingham
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Patrick McManus
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Stephen Farrell
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Stephen Farrell
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Mark Nottingham
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Mark Nottingham
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Stephen Farrell

Monday, 9 December 2013

• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Mark Nottingham
• Re: Proxy User Stories Martin Thomson
• Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults Ted Hardie
• Re: Proxy User Stories Amos Jeffries
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Daniel Stenberg
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Chris Burdess
• Re: Proxy User Stories Martin Thomson
• Re: Proxy User Stories Amos Jeffries
• Re: HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Michael Sweet
• HTTP/2.0 draft, NPN/ALPN, and TLS Chris Burdess
• Re: Proxy User Stories James M Snell
• Re: Proxy User Stories Martin Thomson
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Mark Watson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Peter Lepeska
• Re: Three More Proxy User Stories Peter Lepeska
• Re: Proxy User Stories Amos Jeffries
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Stephen Farrell
• Re: Proxy User Stories Benjamin Carlyle
• Re: Proxy User Stories Martin J. Dürst
• Re: Three More Proxy User Stories Yoav Nir
• Re: Three More Proxy User Stories Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Roberto Peon
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 8 December 2013

• Three More Proxy User Stories Peter Lepeska
• Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults Yoav Nir
• Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults Peter Lepeska
• Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults Stephen Farrell
• Re: Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Julian Reschke

Saturday, 7 December 2013

• Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults Yoav Nir
• Explicit proxy options and defaults Stephen Farrell
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Albert Lunde
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Mark Nottingham
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs James Cloos

Friday, 6 December 2013

• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Tim Bray
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Werner Baumann
• Re: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/329 - Flow control window overflow Roberto Peon
• Re: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/329 - Flow control window overflow Martin Thomson
• https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/329 - Flow control window overflow 陈智昌
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Martin Thomson
• spec size and organization, was: Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Julian Reschke
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Yoav Nir
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Amos Jeffries
• Re: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Adrien de Croy
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Patrick McManus
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Adrien de Croy
• Re: Default stream priority James Cloos
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Martin Thomson
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 5 December 2013

• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Adrien de Croy
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Martin Thomson
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Amos Jeffries
• Re: Default stream priority Martin Thomson
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Amos Jeffries
• Re: Default stream priority James Cloos
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Adrien de Croy
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Adrien de Croy
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Martin Thomson
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: 2817 for TLS (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09) Martin Thomson
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Willy Tarreau
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: 2817 for TLS (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09) James Cloos
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Carsten Bormann
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt James M Snell
• RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Mike Bishop
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Michael Sweet
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Martin Thomson
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Carsten Bormann
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Martin Thomson
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Martin Thomson
• Re: Default stream priority Martin Thomson
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions James M Snell
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Michael Sweet
• Re: Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Josh Howlett
• Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs Carsten Bormann
• Re: Default stream priority Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Default stream priority 陈智昌
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: 2014 Meeting planning Mark Nottingham
• Re: 2014 Meeting planning Martin J. Dürst
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• Our ALPN protocol IDs Mark Nottingham
• Re: 2014 Meeting planning 陈智昌
• Re: Proxy User Stories 陈智昌
• Re: 2014 Meeting planning Mark Nottingham
• Re: 2014 Meeting planning 陈智昌
• Proxy User Stories Mark Nottingham
• 2014 Meeting planning Mark Nottingham
• 2817 for TLS (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09) Martin Thomson
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt James Cloos
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions 陈智昌

Wednesday, 4 December 2013

• Sorry Bruce Perens
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Roberto Peon
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Adrien de Croy
• Re: [perpass] Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Mark Nottingham
• Re: [perpass] Commnets on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 was RE: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Hannes Tschofenig
• Third Implementation Draft [was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt] Mark Nottingham
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions 陈智昌
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions 陈智昌
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Martin Thomson
• Re: Default stream priority Martin Thomson
• Re: Default stream priority 陈智昌
• Re: Default stream priority Adrien de Croy
• Re: Default stream priority 陈智昌
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Patrick McManus
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Adrien de Croy
• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt Martin Thomson
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions 陈智昌
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Roberto Peon
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Mark Watson
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-05.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• RE: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Paul Hoffman
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions 陈智昌
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Roberto Peon
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Mark Watson
• Default stream priority Martin Thomson
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 James M Snell
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Paul Hoffman
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Roberto Peon
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Peter Lepeska
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions 陈智昌
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Patrick McManus
• RE: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions Roberto Peon
• Some HTTP 2.0 questions Mark Watson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Peter Lepeska
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Salvatore Loreto
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 James M Snell
• Re: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Paul Hoffman
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 James M Snell
• Re: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Mark Nottingham
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Amos Jeffries
• Re: perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Tim Bray
• perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01 Bruce Perens
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Peter Lepeska
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Peter Lepeska
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? James M Snell
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Albert Lunde
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Ted Hardie
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Patrick McManus
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? James M Snell
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Tim Bray
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Ilari Liusvaara
• Fwd: [httpbis] #525: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25 Julian Reschke
• Fwd: [httpbis] #524: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25 Julian Reschke
• Fwd: [httpbis] #523: Gen-ART Last Call review draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25 Julian Reschke
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Adrien de Croy
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Martin Thomson
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 James M Snell
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Paul Hoffman
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Martin Thomson
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Paul Hoffman
• Re: Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Martin Thomson
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Albert Lunde
• Proposal for doing unauthenticated encryption inside of HTTP/2 Paul Hoffman
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Patrick McManus
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Willy Tarreau
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Salvatore Loreto
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Yoav Nir
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Willy Tarreau
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Roberto Peon
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌
• Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? Roberto Peon
• What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies? 陈智昌

Monday, 2 December 2013

• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Adrien de Croy
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Peter Lepeska
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Peter Lepeska
• Re: Ambiguity when handling DATA frames on closed streams Martin Thomson
• Re: Ambiguity when handling DATA frames on closed streams Jeff Pinner
• Re: Ambiguity when handling DATA frames on closed streams Martin Thomson
• Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08 / 5.1. Stream States Martin Thomson

Saturday, 30 November 2013

• draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08 / 5.1. Stream States Kari Hurtta

Friday, 29 November 2013

• Ambiguity when handling DATA frames on closed streams Alan Shreve

Monday, 2 December 2013

• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Willy Tarreau
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Eliot Lear
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Willy Tarreau

Sunday, 1 December 2013

• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir

Saturday, 30 November 2013

• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Paul Hoffman

Friday, 29 November 2013

• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Nicolas Mailhot

Thursday, 28 November 2013

• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Adrien de Croy
• RE: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Christian Huitema
• Re: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 Frode Kileng
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Fwd: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Eliot Lear
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir
• Re: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 Mark Nottingham
• Re: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 陈智昌
• Re: Fwd: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 Bruce Perens
• Fwd: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00 Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Amos Jeffries
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Adrien de Croy
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Some entropy calculations with secret/huffman interaction Roberto Peon
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Peter Lepeska
• Re: Some entropy calculations with secret/huffman interaction Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Some entropy calculations with secret/huffman interaction Martin Thomson
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Willy Tarreau
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal James M Snell
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Peter Lepeska
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Peter Lepeska
• Some entropy calculations with secret/huffman interaction Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Willy Tarreau
• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal James M Snell

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

• Re: Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Adrien de Croy
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Mark Nottingham
• Proposal: Explicit HTTP2S proxy with any node refusal Peter Lepeska
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion James M Snell
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Roberto Peon
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Adrien de Croy
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Martin Thomson
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Adrien de Croy
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Adrien de Croy
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• RE: #305 Header ordering RUELLAN Herve
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Salvatore Loreto
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Patrick McManus
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir
• Re: Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Roland Zink
• Yet another trusted proxy suggestion Yoav Nir
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Salvatore Loreto
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: #305 Header ordering Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Roberto Peon
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Amos Jeffries
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Ted Hardie
• Re: #305 Header ordering Mark Nottingham
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Adrien de Croy
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Martin Thomson
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Roberto Peon
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) James M Snell
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Martin Thomson

Monday, 25 November 2013

• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) David Morris
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Adrien de Croy
• Re: Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Peter Lepeska
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-02.txt James M Snell
• Trusting proxies (was Re: I revised the pro/contra document) Martin Thomson
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Peter Lepeska
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Zhong Yu
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Stephen Farrell
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Stephen Farrell
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Eliot Lear
• RE: I revised the pro/contra document Christian Huitema
• Re: #305 Header ordering Jeff Pinner
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Eliot Lear
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Tim Bray

Sunday, 24 November 2013

• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Matthew Kerwin
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Roland Zink
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Adrien de Croy
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Adrien de Croy
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Zhong Yu
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Stephen Farrell
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Zhong Yu
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Michael Sweet
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Mike Belshe
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Stephen Farrell
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Mike Belshe
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Yoav Nir
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Mike Belshe
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Mike Belshe
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Tim Bray
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document James M Snell
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Tim Bray
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document James M Snell
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Matthew Kerwin
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Mike Belshe
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Michael Sweet

Saturday, 23 November 2013

• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Mike Belshe
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Tim Bray
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Stephen Farrell
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• RE: I revised the pro/contra document Mike Bishop
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: I revised the pro/contra document Alexandre Anzala-Yamajako
• I revised the pro/contra document Tim Bray
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa

Friday, 22 November 2013

• Re: #1: Upgrade proposals [was: Call for Proposals re: #314] Willy Tarreau
• Re: #1: Upgrade proposals [was: Call for Proposals re: #314] Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering James M Snell
• RE: #305 Header ordering RUELLAN Herve
• Re: #305 Header ordering Mike Bishop
• Re: #305 Header ordering Amos Jeffries
• Re: #305 Header ordering Amos Jeffries
• Re: #305 Header ordering Amos Jeffries
• Re: #305 Header ordering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #305 Header ordering James M Snell
• Re: #305 Header ordering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering James M Snell
• #1: Upgrade proposals [was: Call for Proposals re: #314] Mark Nottingham
• Re: #305 Header ordering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering James M Snell
• Re: #305 Header ordering Mark Nottingham
• Re: #305 Header ordering Patrick McManus

Thursday, 21 November 2013

• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Patrick McManus
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• Re: #305 Header ordering Patrick McManus
• Re: #305 Header ordering Roberto Peon
• #305 Header ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Willy Tarreau
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Willy Tarreau
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Michael Sweet
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Martin Thomson
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Mark Nottingham
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Adrien de Croy
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Paul Hoffman
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Paul Hoffman
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Mark Nottingham
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Adrien de Croy
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Paul Hoffman
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Paul Hoffman
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Paul Hoffman
• Re: Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Adrien de Croy

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

• RE: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Manger, James H
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Adrien de Croy
• #1: Upgrade Mechanism Mark Nottingham
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Stephen Farrell
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Michael Sweet
• Re: Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Yoav Nir
• Getting our definitions of encryption straight for the HTTP/2 security discussion Paul Hoffman
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Yoav Nir
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Willy Tarreau
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Piotr Galecki
• Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14 Julian Reschke
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Roberto Peon
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Willy Tarreau
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Michael Sweet
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Roland Zink
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Stefan Eissing
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Willy Tarreau
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Roberto Peon
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Yoav Nir
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Yoav Nir
• RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Yoav Nir
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Poul-Henning Kamp
• RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Yoav Nir
• RE: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Yoav Nir
• RE: Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Yoav Nir
• RE: A proposal Yoav Nir
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Matthew Kerwin
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Willy Tarreau
• Re: Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Willy Tarreau
• Re: Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Willy Tarreau
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Roberto Peon
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Roberto Peon
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Eliot Lear
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Mark Nottingham
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet James M Snell
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Adrien de Croy
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Roberto Peon
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Mark Nottingham
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Mark Nottingham
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Roberto Peon
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet James M Snell
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Matthew Kerwin
• Re: Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Mike Belshe
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Mark Nottingham
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Mark Nottingham
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Adrien de Croy
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Grahame Grieve
• Explicit Proxy [was: A proposal] Mark Nottingham
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Matthew Kerwin
• Re: A proposal Willy Tarreau
• Re: A proposal Willy Tarreau
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: A proposal Willy Tarreau
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Roberto Peon
• Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations Amos Jeffries
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal Amos Jeffries
• Re: A proposal Roy T. Fielding
• Re: A proposal David Morris
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: A proposal David Morris
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Roberto Peon
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: A proposal Stephen Farrell
• Re: A proposal Roberto Peon
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Peter Saint-Andre
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Zhong Yu
• Re: A proposal Stephen Farrell
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-keynego-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Adrien de Croy
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Roberto Peon
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Adrien de Croy
• Re: RFC1918 + localhost Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Fwd: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• RFC1918 + localhost Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: A proposal Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Things we know and can hopefully agree upon w.r.t. the state of the web today. Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14 Barry Leiba
• Re: A proposal Michael Sweet
• Fwd: A proposal Mike Belshe
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: A proposal Stephen Farrell
• Re: A proposal Michael Sweet
• Re: A proposal Albert Lunde
• Re: A proposal Stephen Farrell
• Re: A proposal Mike Belshe
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Mike Belshe
• Re: A proposal Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25 Julian Reschke
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal Amos Jeffries
• Re: A proposal Stephen Farrell
• Re: Things we know and can hopefully agree upon w.r.t. the state of the web today. Amos Jeffries

Monday, 18 November 2013

• Re: A proposal Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14 Julian Reschke
• Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25 Michael Sweet
• #522, was: Fwd: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25 Julian Reschke
• Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14 Julian Reschke
• Fwd: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25 Julian Reschke
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... David Morris
• Re: #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations Julian Reschke
• #520, was: Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations Julian Reschke
• Re: Things we know and can hopefully agree upon w.r.t. the state of the web today. mike amundsen
• Re: Things we know and can hopefully agree upon w.r.t. the state of the web today. Eliot Lear
• Things we know and can hopefully agree upon w.r.t. the state of the web today. Roberto Peon
• Re: A proposal Roberto Peon
• Re: on the long-term viability of http/1.1 as a fall-back option Roberto Peon
• Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 Julian Reschke
• Fwd: Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 with security considerations Julian Reschke
• Re: on the long-term viability of http/1.1 as a fall-back option James M Snell
• Re: on the long-term viability of http/1.1 as a fall-back option Julian Reschke
• Re: on the long-term viability of http/1.1 as a fall-back option Mike Belshe
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Patrick McManus
• Re: A proposal Yoav Nir
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Yoav Nir
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Yoav Nir
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Yoav Nir
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Mark Nottingham
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Henry Story
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Willy Tarreau
• Re: A proposal Robert Collins
• Re: Cookie crumbling in -09 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Yoav Nir
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Yoav Nir
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Cookie crumbling in -09 Daniel Stenberg
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Julian Reschke
• Re: Cookie crumbling in -09 Julian Reschke
• Re: That wonderful 1980-ies hippie vibe... Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Eliot Lear
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Willy Tarreau
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Willy Tarreau
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Willy Tarreau
• Re: Cookie crumbling in -09 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Michael Sweet
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Adrien de Croy
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... James M Snell
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mark Nottingham
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... James M Snell
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Grahame Grieve
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mark Nottingham
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: A proposal Mark Nottingham
• Re: A proposal Michael Sweet
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") James M Snell
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Roberto Peon
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") James M Snell
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Mark Nottingham
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") James M Snell
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Mark Nottingham
• Re: That wonderful 1980-ies hippie vibe... Mark Nottingham
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Cookie crumbling in -09 Martin Thomson
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Martin Thomson
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Bruce Perens
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Martin Thomson

Sunday, 17 November 2013

• Re: A proposal Mike Belshe
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Adrien de Croy
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Willy Tarreau
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Willy Tarreau
• Re: A proposal Roy T. Fielding
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") James M Snell
• on the long-term viability of http/1.1 as a fall-back option Adrien de Croy
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: That wonderful 1980-ies hippie vibe... Roberto Peon
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Adrien de Croy
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Roberto Peon
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Willy Tarreau
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Adrien de Croy
• That wonderful 1980-ies hippie vibe... Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Willy Tarreau
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Roberto Peon
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Adrien de Croy
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Willy Tarreau
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Bruce Perens
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Roberto Peon
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Roberto Peon
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Roberto Peon
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Julian Reschke
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Zhong Yu
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Roberto Peon
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Bruce Perens
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Adrien de Croy
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Mike Belshe
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 James M Snell
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Bruce Perens
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Amos Jeffries
• Re: TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Mike Belshe
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Mike Belshe
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Mike Belshe
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Roberto Peon
• TLS at transport level vs stream multiplexing and aggregation (http "routers") Adrien de Croy
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Mike Belshe
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Reasonable proposal for migrating to 2.0 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: A proposal Adrien de Croy
• Re: A proposal Tim Bray
• Re: A proposal Mike Belshe
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal Karl Dubost
• Re: A proposal Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: A proposal Patrick McManus
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: A proposal Zhong Yu
• Re: A proposal James M Snell
• Re: A proposal Roland Zink
• A proposal James M Snell
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Roland Zink
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Julian Reschke
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Stephen Farrell
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Stephen Farrell
• Re: something I don't get about the current plan... Mike Belshe
• something I don't get about the current plan... Stephen Farrell
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Stephen Farrell
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Zhong Yu
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Stephen Farrell
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Zhong Yu
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Stephen Farrell
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Mike Belshe
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Mike Belshe
• Re: httpbis -24 drafts Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: HTTP/2.0 protocol identifier string (#323) Patrick McManus
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Yoav Nir
• httpbis -25 drafts, Re: httpbis -24 drafts Julian Reschke
• httpbis -24 drafts Julian Reschke
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Yoav Nir
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-09.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-14.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-25.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-25.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-25.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Tim Bray
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Bruce Perens
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Robert Collins
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra SM
• Re: HTTP/2.0 protocol identifier string (#323) Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP/2.0 protocol identifier string (#323) Amos Jeffries
• HTTP/2.0 protocol identifier string (#323) Martin Thomson
• Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Tim Bray
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Amos Jeffries
• Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra Tim Bray

Saturday, 16 November 2013

• RE: Cookie crumbling in -09 Mike Bishop
• Re: Cookie crumbling in -09 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Cookie crumbling in -09 Willy Tarreau
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Willy Tarreau
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Stephen Farrell
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Phillip Hallam-Baker

Friday, 15 November 2013

• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Stephen Farrell
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Tobias Gondrom
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Bruce Perens
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• MLS or TLS? There is more than one encryption option. Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Cookie crumbling in -09 Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio James M Snell
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio SM
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Michael Sweet
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Mike Belshe
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio James M Snell
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Stephen Farrell
• Re: [IAB] Mandatory encryption as part of HTTP2 Roberto Peon
• Re: [IAB] Mandatory encryption as part of HTTP2 Iljitsch van Beijnum
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Stephen Farrell
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Roberto Peon
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Michael Sweet
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Roland Zink
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Julian Reschke
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security James M Snell
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Michael Sweet
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Michael Sweet
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Michael Sweet
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Amos Jeffries
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Julian Reschke
• RE: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Markus Lanthaler
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Stefan Eissing
• Re: Focusing our discussion on issues Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Roberto Peon
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Julian Reschke
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Julian Reschke
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Mark Nottingham
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Mark Nottingham
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Bruce Perens
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Julian Reschke
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Tim Bray
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Willy Tarreau
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Julian Reschke
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Bruce Perens
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Mike Belshe
• Re: How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Martin J. Dürst
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Mark Nottingham
• Focusing our discussion on issues Mark Nottingham
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Geoff Beier
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Ryan Hamilton
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio David Morris

Thursday, 14 November 2013

• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roland Zink
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Adrien de Croy
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio James M Snell
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Tao Effect
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Mike Belshe
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Adrien de Croy
• Re: Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Tao Effect
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Adrien de Croy
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security James M Snell
• Mandatory TLS == OpenSSL everywhere? !?! Adrien de Croy
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Willy Tarreau
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Amos Jeffries
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Michael Sweet
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Gili
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio James M Snell
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Gili
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicholas Hurley
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security James M Snell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Michael Sweet
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Stephen Farrell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Bruce Perens
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio James M Snell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicholas Hurley
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Bruce Perens
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• How HTTP 2.0 mandatory security will actually reduce my personal security Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Patrick McManus
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security James M Snell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Michael Sweet
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Stephen Farrell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security James M Snell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Michael Sweet
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Amos Jeffries
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Amos Jeffries
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Julian Reschke
• RE: Draft-08 and Third Implementation Draft Milestones RUELLAN Herve
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Martin J. Dürst
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Martin J. Dürst
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roland Zink
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Stephen Farrell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roland Zink
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Adrien de Croy
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Martin J. Dürst
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security cowwoc
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio 陈智昌
• HTTP 2.0 mandatory security vs. Amateur Radio Bruce Perens
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Frédéric Kayser
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Zurich Interim duration Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Roberto Peon
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Frédéric Kayser
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Stephen Farrell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Patrick McManus
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Jason Duell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Grahame Grieve
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Amos Jeffries

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Eliot Lear
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Draft-08 and Third Implementation Draft Milestones Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Karl Dubost
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Amos Jeffries
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security James M Snell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Adrien de Croy
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Stephen Farrell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Zhong Yu
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tim Bray
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Martin Thomson
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• RE: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Bishop
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Martin Thomson
• Re: Draft-08 and Third Implementation Draft Milestones Martin Thomson
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security 陈智昌
• RE: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Rob Trace
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Michael Sweet
• Draft-08 and Third Implementation Draft Milestones Patrick McManus
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mike Belshe
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tim Bray
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security James M Snell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tim Bray
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Eliot Lear
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Peter Lepeska
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Peter Lepeska
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Peter Lepeska
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Stephen Farrell
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Tao Effect
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Michael Sweet
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham
• Re: p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Julian Reschke
• Re: Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Julian Reschke
• Moving forward on improving HTTP's security Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt James M Snell
• p6: maximum delta-seconds of 2147483648 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Rough minutes Mark Nottingham
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt Mike Bishop

Monday, 11 November 2013

• Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08.txt Martin Thomson
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-08.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-httpbis-ext-frames-01.txt James M Snell
• Re: Rough minutes Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Rough minutes Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Rough minutes Ilari Liusvaara
• RE: Rough minutes Christian Huitema

Sunday, 10 November 2013

• Re: Rough minutes Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Rough minutes Yoav Nir
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt James M Snell
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt James M Snell
• Re: Rough minutes Julian Reschke
• Re: Rough minutes Yoav Nir

Saturday, 9 November 2013

• Re: Rough minutes Peter Lepeska
• RE: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt Mike Bishop

Friday, 8 November 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt Roberto Peon
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt James M Snell
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt James M Snell
• New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-00.txt Mike Bishop
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Henri Sivonen
• RE: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Manger, James H

Thursday, 7 November 2013

• Re: TLS WG discussion of ALPN Eric Rescorla
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: #507 integer value parsing, Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Hans Spaak
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Graham Klyne
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Graham Klyne
• RE: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Manger, James H
• draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24, "4.3.4 PUT" Julian Reschke
• #507 integer value parsing, Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Peter Lepeska
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm James M Snell
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Peter Lepeska
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm James M Snell
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Michael Sweet
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm James M Snell
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Michael Sweet
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Amos Jeffries
• Re: Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Poul-Henning Kamp
• Suggestion for simplified HTTP 2.0 header compression algorithm Hans Spaak
• Re: FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: Rough minutes Yoav Nir
• Re: Rough minutes Tim Bray
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Julian Reschke
• Rough minutes Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

• Re: [apps-discuss] Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Mark Nottingham
• TLS WG discussion of ALPN Patrick McManus
• Re: HPACK Security : Academic Paper Roberto Peon
• HPACK Security : Academic Paper Matthew Lepinski
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Martin Thomson
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Martin Thomson
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Roberto Peon

Monday, 4 November 2013

• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Mark Nottingham
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Mike Bishop
• Re: relax SHOULD send Last-Modified?, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24 Mark Nottingham
• relax SHOULD send Last-Modified?, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Mark Nottingham
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Julian Reschke
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Mike Bishop
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Mike Bishop
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Peter Lepeska
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Peter Lepeska
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Mike Bishop
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities Peter Lepeska
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Roberto Peon
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Amos Jeffries
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE 陈智昌
• Re: idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Martin Thomson
• idea -- MAX_PUSH_RESOURCE_SIZE Peter Lepeska
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Bjoern Hoehrmann
• HPACK performance summary Peter Lepeska
• Re: Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Poul-Henning Kamp
• Request that the WG reconsider section 3.4: Content Negotiation Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Michael Sweet
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer 陈智昌
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• RE: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of media type, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Larry Masinter
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Michael Sweet
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Michael Sweet
• Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of media type, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Scharf, Michael (Michael)
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Patrick McManus
• APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24 Ray Polk
• Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13 Julian Reschke
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Yoav Nir
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Amos Jeffries
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Roberto Peon
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Roberto Peon
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer 陈智昌
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• If anyone's in vancouver Peter Lepeska
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer 陈智昌
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Yoav Nir
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Roberto Peon

Sunday, 3 November 2013

• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? 陈智昌
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer 陈智昌
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Yoav Nir
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities 陈智昌
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities Peter Lepeska
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Peter Lepeska
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Peter Lepeska
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Peter Lepeska
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Michael Sweet
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Patrick McManus
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities 陈智昌
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer 陈智昌
• Re: Question on flow control for a single file transfer Martin Thomson
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Yoav Nir
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Patrick McManus
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Peter Lepeska
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Patrick McManus
• Question on flow control for a single file transfer Peter Lepeska
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Peter Lepeska
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? bizzbyster@gmail.com
• implementation of HTTP 2.0 Upgrade in node-http2 emile.stephan@orange.com
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Daniel Stenberg
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? David Morris
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Roberto Peon
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Martin Thomson
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Peter Lepeska
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Martin Thomson
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Peter Lepeska
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Peter Lepeska
• Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? Martin Thomson
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities Peter Lepeska
• Re: connection limits, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 Martin Thomson
• should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0? bizzbyster@gmail.com
• Re: push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources Martin Thomson
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities Martin Thomson
• push_promise sent after frames that reference promised resources bizzbyster@gmail.com
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities bizzbyster@gmail.com
• Re: connection limits, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 bizzbyster@gmail.com
• APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13 S Moonesamy

Friday, 1 November 2013

• Re: additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke

Thursday, 31 October 2013

• Re: proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Mark Nottingham
• Re: question about :authority header field Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Nico Williams
• Re: additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Bjoern Hoehrmann
• additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Julian Reschke
• Re: content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 S Moonesamy
• Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of media type, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Martin J. Dürst
• Re: Rough agenda for Vancouver Mark Nottingham
• Re: content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Mark Nottingham
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

• Re: #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 S Moonesamy
• Re: Reuse of credentials per realm, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 S Moonesamy
• Reuse of credentials per realm, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Julian Reschke
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Barry Leiba
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Michael Sweet
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Julian Reschke
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Julian Reschke
• Re: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Michael Sweet
• WWW-Authenticate parsing quirks, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• #516 note about WWW-A parsing potentially misleading Julian Reschke
• Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• deprecation of HTTP header field line folding, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 Michael Sweet
• Re: #504 does From: allow non addr-spec mailbox values? Julian Reschke
• Re: #504 does From: allow non addr-spec mailbox values? Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: #504 does From: allow non addr-spec mailbox values? Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of media type, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Martin J. Dürst
• Re: #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: [apps-discuss] content inspection in absence of media type, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Martin J. Dürst
• Re: connection limits, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review, etc. S Moonesamy
• Re: connection limits, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 S Moonesamy
• Re: #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 S Moonesamy
• Re: custom byte ranges, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 S Moonesamy
• Re: IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 S Moonesamy
• APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 S Moonesamy

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

• APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24 S Moonesamy

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

• APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08 S Moonesamy

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

• Fwd: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24 Julian Reschke
• RE: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• Re: question about :authority header field Martin Thomson
• RE: question about :authority header field RUELLAN Herve
• RE: Questions about ALPN Mike Bishop
• Re: #504 does From: allow non addr-spec mailbox values? Julian Reschke
• connection limits, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Barry Leiba
• #506, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 Julian Reschke
• custom byte ranges, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: Registration requirements for transfer codings, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 S Moonesamy
• Re: content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 S Moonesamy
• HTTPBIS WG Interim Meeting, 22-24 January 2014 IESG Secretary
• APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24 S Moonesamy

Monday, 28 October 2013

• Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 S Moonesamy
• APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24 S Moonesamy

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Mark Nottingham
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK James M Snell
• Re: [apps-discuss] FYI: LINK and UNLINK Mark Nottingham
• Re: Questions about ALPN Mark Nottingham
• Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Amos Jeffries

Monday, 28 October 2013

• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities Martin Thomson
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities 陈智昌
• Re: Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities Martin Thomson
• Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities 陈智昌
• RE: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• Re: Questions about ALPN Martin Thomson
• RE: Questions about ALPN Mike Bishop
• RE: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 John C Klensin
• Re: Questions about ALPN Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
• Re: Questions about ALPN Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Questions about ALPN Martin Thomson
• content inspection in absence of media type, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Julian Reschke
• Registration requirements for transfer codings, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 Julian Reschke
• #504 does From: allow non addr-spec mailbox values? Julian Reschke
• Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 John C Klensin
• IANA issues, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Julian Reschke
• obs-date, was: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: Questions about ALPN Alexey Melnikov
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing) to Proposed Standard Julian Reschke
• Re: Questions about ALPN Mark Nottingham
• Re: Questions about ALPN Amos Jeffries
• Re: Questions about ALPN Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)

Saturday, 26 October 2013

• Re: Questions about ALPN Martin J. Dürst

Sunday, 27 October 2013

• IANA URIS, was: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24 Julian Reschke
• Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing) to Proposed Standard Julian Reschke
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa

Saturday, 26 October 2013

• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Roberto Peon
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Roberto Peon
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa

Friday, 25 October 2013

• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• RE: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Mike Bishop
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• RE: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Mike Bishop
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Roberto Peon
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Fred Akalin
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Hervé Ruellan
• Re: HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Mark Nottingham
• HPACK encoder/decoder memory bounding Osama Mazahir

Thursday, 24 October 2013

• Re: Questions about ALPN Amos Jeffries

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

• Re: Cacheable response codes Mark Nottingham
• RE: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• RE: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Andrew Rockwell
• Re: question about :authority header field Martin Thomson
• Re: Does HTTP/2.0 client connection header include SETTINGS frame? Yi, EungJun
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Roberto Peon
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Roberto Peon
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Roberto Peon
• Re: Cacheable status codes cowwoc
• Re: Questions about ALPN Amos Jeffries
• question about :authority header field Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Amos Jeffries
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Cacheable status codes Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

• HPACK examples. Roberto Peon
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Roberto Peon
• Cacheable response codes cowwoc
• Re: Cookie crumbling Martin Thomson
• Re: Cookie crumbling James M Snell
• RE: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• Re: Cookie crumbling Daniel Stenberg
• Re: Cookie crumbling James M Snell
• Re: Cookie crumbling Martin Thomson
• Re: Cookie crumbling Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Does HTTP/2.0 client connection header include SETTINGS frame? Martin Thomson
• Re: Cookie crumbling Martin Thomson
• Re: Does HTTP/2.0 client connection header include SETTINGS frame? Yi, EungJun
• Re: Cookie crumbling Zhong Yu
• Re: Cookie crumbling Daniel Stenberg
• Re: Cookie crumbling Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Questions about ALPN Roberto Peon
• Heads up for January F2F Mark Nottingham
• Re: Questions about ALPN Martin Thomson
• Preliminary minutes from the Seattle Interim Mark Nottingham

Monday, 21 October 2013

• RE: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-07.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-04.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Martin Thomson
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Fred Akalin
• Cookie crumbling Martin Thomson
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Fred Akalin
• RE: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Mike Bishop
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Martin Thomson
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Fred Akalin
• RE: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) James M Snell
• Re: on/about a stream, frame ordering Martin Thomson
• Re: on/about a stream, frame ordering Martin Thomson
• on/about a stream, frame ordering 陈智昌
• RE: Does HTTP/2.0 client connection header include SETTINGS frame? Mike Bishop
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Martin Thomson
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Roberto Peon
• Re: Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Rough agenda for Vancouver Salvatore Loreto
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt> (Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme Registrations) to Informational RFC The IESG
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations-13.txt> (Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registrations) to Informational RFC The IESG
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication) to Proposed Standard The IESG
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching) to Proposed Standard The IESG
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests) to Proposed Standard The IESG
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests) to Proposed Standard The IESG
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content) to Proposed Standard The IESG
• Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing) to Proposed Standard The IESG
• Re: Rough agenda for Vancouver Mark Nottingham
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Fred Akalin
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Willy Tarreau
• Next pre-draft implementation in javascript. Roberto Peon
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) James M Snell
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Roberto Peon
• Re: Security concern about open range integers (was: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation) Frédéric Kayser

Sunday, 20 October 2013

• Does HTTP/2.0 client connection header include SETTINGS frame? Yi, EungJun

Saturday, 19 October 2013

• Re: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK Roberto Peon
• Re: Questions about ALPN Amos Jeffries
• Re: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: Minutes from last week's interim meeting? Mark Nottingham
• Re: Questions about ALPN Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components Mark Nottingham

Friday, 18 October 2013

• Re: Questions about ALPN Andrei Popov
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components Sufian Rhazi
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Martin Thomson
• Re: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK Martin Thomson
• Re: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation Martin Thomson
• Re: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• RE: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK Roberto Peon
• RE: I ran across this while working on the spec. RUELLAN Herve
• Re: Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation Roberto Peon
• RE: SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK RUELLAN Herve
• SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE and ACK Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• RE: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question RUELLAN Herve
• RE: New draft-loreto-httpbis-proxy20-00.txt emile.stephan@orange.com
• Question about: 4.1.1 Integer representation Frédéric Kayser
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components Julian Reschke
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Fred Akalin
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Patrick McManus
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components David Morris
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Roberto Peon
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Roberto Peon
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Fred Akalin
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components Zhong Yu
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Roberto Peon
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Roberto Peon
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Fred Akalin
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Kulkarni, Saurabh
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components Sufian Rhazi
• RE: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Mike Bishop
• Re: HTTP response cacheability and query components David Morris

Thursday, 17 October 2013

• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Roberto Peon
• RE: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Mike Bishop
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Roberto Peon
• RE: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Mike Bishop
• HTTP response cacheability and query components Sufian Rhazi
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Roberto Peon
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Roberto Peon
• Re: Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Fred Akalin
• Integer Representation in header-compression-draft-03 Kulkarni, Saurabh
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Fred Akalin
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Roberto Peon
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Fred Akalin
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Fred Akalin
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Roberto Peon
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Ilari Liusvaara
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Abdelaziz Raji
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Jeff Pinner
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Roberto Peon
• RE: I ran across this while working on the spec. Mike Bishop
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Roberto Peon
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Martin Thomson
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Roberto Peon
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Jeff Pinner
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Roberto Peon
• Re: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question Roberto Peon
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Roberto Peon
• Re: New draft-loreto-httpbis-proxy20-00.txt Salvatore Loreto
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Minutes from last week's interim meeting? Paul Hoffman
• RE: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question RUELLAN Herve
• RE: I ran across this while working on the spec. RUELLAN Herve
• Re: First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Ilari Liusvaara
• RE: New draft-loreto-httpbis-proxy20-00.txt emile.stephan@orange.com
• RE: Uppercase/lowercase header field names RUELLAN Herve
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Amos Jeffries
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Philippe Mougin
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Mark Baker
• Re: I ran across this while working on the spec. Fred Akalin
• I ran across this while working on the spec. Roberto Peon

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

• Re: Mobile headers Martin Nilsson
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? cowwoc
• Re: Mobile headers Mark Nottingham
• Re: Mobile headers Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Mobile headers Mark Nottingham
• First cut of Huffman encoding in compression document. Roberto Peon
• Re: New draft-loreto-httpbis-proxy20-00.txt Salvatore Loreto
• #501, was: Does idempotence include the response codes? Julian Reschke
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Julian Reschke
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/Advice cowwoc
• https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/Advice 陈智昌
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? cowwoc
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Willy Tarreau
• Re: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question Martin Thomson
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? cowwoc
• Re: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question Fred Akalin
• Re: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question Roberto Peon
• Re: Uppercase/lowercase header field names Amos Jeffries
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Willy Tarreau
• Re: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question Martin Thomson
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Amos Jeffries
• Re: Uppercase/lowercase header field names Martin Thomson
• Re: All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• All changes but huffman encoding integrated + a question Roberto Peon
• Re: Uppercase/lowercase header field names Fred Akalin
• Uppercase/lowercase header field names Martin Thomson

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Philippe Mougin
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? cowwoc
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-01.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Martin Thomson
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Mark Nottingham
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Gili
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt Erik Nygren
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Martin Thomson
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Julian Reschke
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? Martin Thomson
• Re: Does idempotence include the response codes? cowwoc
• Does idempotence include the response codes? cowwoc
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Michael Sweet
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt Eliot Lear
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-alt-svc-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Amos Jeffries
• Re: Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Questions about ALPN Martin J. Dürst
• Expect/Continue and Removing 1xx Final Status codes from HTTP/2 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Questions about ALPN Martin Thomson

Monday, 14 October 2013

• Re: Questions about ALPN Roberto Peon
• Questions about ALPN Mark Nottingham
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Paul Hoffman

Saturday, 12 October 2013

• Re: Strawman for DoS considerations Amos Jeffries

Friday, 11 October 2013

• Mobile headers Martin Nilsson
• Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features) Nico Williams
• Re: Strawman for DoS considerations Alexey Melnikov
• Strawman for DoS considerations Martin Thomson
• Re: Cacheable status codes Julian Reschke
• Cacheable status codes cowwoc
• Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features) Michael Welzl

Thursday, 10 October 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Paul Hoffman
• Re: per stream (initial) flow window size Ilya Grigorik
• Re: #255 eviction for substitution Amos Jeffries
• Re: per stream (initial) flow window size Patrick McManus
• Re: per stream (initial) flow window size Ilya Grigorik

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

• Re: per stream (initial) flow window size Mark Nottingham
• RE: #255 eviction for substitution RUELLAN Herve
• Re: New draft-loreto-httpbis-proxy20-00.txt Nicolas Mailhot
• New draft-loreto-httpbis-proxy20-00.txt Salvatore Loreto
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt 陈智昌
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt 陈智昌

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

• per stream (initial) flow window size Ilya Grigorik
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-02.txt Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt 陈智昌
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Stephen Farrell
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt 陈智昌
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt 陈智昌
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Monday, 7 October 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Patrick McManus
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Yoav Nir
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade Roberto Peon
• Re: Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade Martin Thomson
• Re: last example on 8.1.1 is faulty? Martin Thomson
• RE: #255 eviction for substitution Mike Bishop
• Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0 Martin Thomson
• #255 eviction for substitution Martin Thomson
• Re: HPACK benchmark test for substitution indexing vs incremental indexing only Roberto Peon
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Paul Hoffman
• RE: HPACK benchmark test for substitution indexing vs incremental indexing only RUELLAN Herve
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Yoav Nir
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Paul Hoffman
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mike Bishop
• Re: Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade Mike Bishop
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Paul Hoffman
• FYI: DRAFT agenda for Vancouver is out Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 6 October 2013

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade Amos Jeffries

Saturday, 5 October 2013

• Re: Frame Type 8 陈智昌
• Re: Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade 陈智昌
• Re: Frame Type 8 Alexey Melnikov
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Alexey Melnikov
• Frame Type 8 Salvatore Loreto
• last example on 8.1.1 is faulty? Salvatore Loreto
• Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade Salvatore Loreto
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Roberto Peon
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Roberto Peon
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Julian Reschke
• Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0 Roberto Peon
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Roberto Peon
• Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0 Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Amos Jeffries
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Martin Thomson

Friday, 4 October 2013

• RE: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Osama Mazahir
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 James M Snell
• Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Martin Thomson
• multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0 Osama Mazahir

Thursday, 3 October 2013

• Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0 Martin Thomson
• Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0 Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Amos Jeffries

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Mike Bishop
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Eliot Lear
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies James M Snell
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Eliot Lear
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Roberto Peon
• RE: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Mike Bishop
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies James M Snell
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Martin Thomson
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Amos Jeffries

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies James M Snell
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies James M Snell
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies James M Snell
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies James M Snell
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Martin Thomson
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies James M Snell
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Roberto Peon
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Roberto Peon
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Stefan Eissing
• Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies Nicolas Mailhot
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Eliot Lear
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Eliot Lear
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Eliot Lear
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Saturday, 28 December 2013 14:36:32 UTC