Monday, 30 June 2014
- RE: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- RE: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- RE: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Fwd: I-D Action: draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn-00.txt
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#537)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: hpack table size 0
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- RE: hpack table size 0
- Re: CRLF requirement
- RE: hpack table size 0
- RE: REFUSED_STREAM and HPACK
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- hpack table size 0
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- REFUSED_STREAM and HPACK
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- CRLF requirement
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
Saturday, 28 June 2014
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Confusing numbering of flags & bits
- Confusing numbering of flags & bits
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re:Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
Friday, 27 June 2014
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: proposed clarifications regarding the state machine (editorial)
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #541: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #541: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations
- CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: proposed clarifications regarding the state machine (editorial)
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #541: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- proposed clarifications regarding the state machine (editorial)
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- RE: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Initial agenda for Toronto
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- HTTP/2 Implementation Draft 5 (and getting to Working Group Last Call)
- #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- #541: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations #541
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
Thursday, 26 June 2014
- RE: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations #541
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations #541
- Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Stateless Multiplexable Continuations #541
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
Wednesday, 25 June 2014
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: Back to the drawing board? was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: Back to the drawing board? was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Should we discuss "split UAs" in the context of proxies, was: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Back to the drawing board? was: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Ops advice
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Trusted proxy UI redux
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
- Re: #540 jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: #540 jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: #540 jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: #540 jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- #540 jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Trusted proxy UI redux
- Trusted proxy UI redux
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Who to trust?
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Framing the proxy discussion
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: Framing the proxy discussion: does HTTP2 come with new proxy mechanism ?
- Fwd: httpbis - Requested sessions have been scheduled for IETF 90
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: Framing the proxy discussion
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
Monday, 23 June 2014
- Re: Who to trust?
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: Who to trust?
- Re: Who to trust?
- Re: Framing the proxy discussion
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Who to trust?
- Who to trust?
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- RE: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: Framing the proxy discussion: does HTTP2 come with new proxy mechanism ?
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: Should we discuss "split UAs" in the context of proxies, was: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Should we discuss "split UAs" in the context of proxies, was: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Framing the proxy discussion
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- RE: Framing the proxy discussion: does HTTP2 come with new proxy mechanism ?
- RE: Framing the proxy discussion
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Framing the proxy discussion
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
Sunday, 22 June 2014
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Ops advice
Saturday, 21 June 2014
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- RE: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- RE: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- RE: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
Friday, 20 June 2014
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- heads in the _security_ sand was: fixing TLS vulnerabilities with h2 was: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-over-version-00.txt
- Ops advice
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- RE: Trusted proxy UI strawman
Thursday, 19 June 2014
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- RE: Negotiating extensions
- RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: HPACK
- Re: HPACK
- RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Negotiating extensions
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: strong server authentication
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Client Behavior for SETTINGS_TIMEOUT
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: HPACK
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- strong server authentication
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: ALPN RFC
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
- Re: HPACK
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: HPACK
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: HPACK
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Client Behavior for SETTINGS_TIMEOUT
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Connection fatal HTTP/2 stream errors
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: HPACK
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: HPACK
- Re: HPACK
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: HPACK
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: HPACK
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: ALPN RFC
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: HPACK
- Re: Connection fatal HTTP/2 stream errors
- ALPN RFC
- Re: Toronto
- Connection fatal HTTP/2 stream errors
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input), ## HTTP Proxy Problems
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Toronto
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
- Re: Done
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Done
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-13.txt
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-08.txt
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- RE: HPACK
- Range Requests vs Content Codings
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Fwd: HPACK
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
Monday, 16 June 2014
- Re: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Fwd: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.
- Moving 421
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-00.txt
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-00.txt
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-00.txt
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- RE: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input), ## HTTP Proxy Problems
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-00.txt
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
Sunday, 15 June 2014
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman
- Re: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-00.txt
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-00.txt
- Trusted proxy UI strawman
Saturday, 14 June 2014
- Re: Other work items
- Re: Other work items
- Re: Other work items
- Re: Other work items
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- Re: http2 Working Code
Friday, 13 June 2014
- Re: Other work items
- Re: Other work items
- Re: http2 Working Code
- Re: Other work items
- Re: Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: Other work items
- Other work items
- Proxies (includes call for adopting new work item, call for input)
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Re: http2 Working Code
- Re: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Re: Reserved extension ids
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- Re: Reserved extension ids
- Re: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Reserved extension ids
- RE: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Re: http2 Working Code
- Re: http2 Working Code
- Re: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- http2 Working Code
- RE: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
Thursday, 12 June 2014
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- RE: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- RE: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Re: what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- what about Proxies in Toronto?
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- Priority inside PUSH_PROMISE frames
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: Clarifications on flow control and padding
- Clarifications on flow control and padding
- Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Including screen size to header messages (extending UserAgent)
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
- HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
- Re: hpack huffman codes
- Re: hpack huffman codes
- Re: hpack huffman codes
- Re: hpack huffman codes
- RE: hpack huffman codes
- Re: hpack huffman codes
- Re: hpack huffman codes
- Re: hpack huffman codes
- hpack huffman codes
- Re: Major decisions at the NYC Interim
- Re: Major decisions at the NYC Interim
- Re: OAuth 2.0 - Proxy-Authenticate Bearer
- Internet draft making SSL/TLS more transparent to the user
Monday, 9 June 2014
- RE: Values for Accept-Encoding
- Re: Values for Accept-Encoding
- Re: Values for Accept-Encoding
- RE: Values for Accept-Encoding
- Re: Values for Accept-Encoding
- Values for Accept-Encoding
- Major decisions at the NYC Interim
- Minutes from the New York Interim
Sunday, 8 June 2014
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- OAuth 2.0 - Proxy-Authenticate Bearer
Saturday, 7 June 2014
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- Re: HTTP/1.1: They're done.
- HTTP/1.1: They're done.
Friday, 6 June 2014
- Re: Limiting allowable pre-SETTINGS requests
- Re: Limiting allowable pre-SETTINGS requests
- Re: Limiting allowable pre-SETTINGS requests
- Re: Limiting allowable pre-SETTINGS requests
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Limiting allowable pre-SETTINGS requests
Thursday, 5 June 2014
- Re: Limiting allowable pre-SETTINGS requests
- Re: fixing TLS vulnerabilities with h2 was: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Limiting allowable pre-SETTINGS requests
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Minutes Etherpad
- Minutes Etherpad
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Issues for discussion in NYC
- Re: fixing TLS vulnerabilities with h2 was: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: fixing TLS vulnerabilities with h2 was: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: fixing TLS vulnerabilities with h2 was: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: fixing TLS vulnerabilities with h2 was: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: Issues for discussion in NYC
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- RE: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Issues for discussion in NYC
- #492: Alt-Svc header host restriction
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- RE: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: 401 ("unauthenticated" v.s. "unauthorized")
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: 401 ("unauthenticated" v.s. "unauthorized")
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Re: Making extensibility cheap
- Making extensibility cheap
Tuesday, 3 June 2014
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: 401 ("unauthenticated" v.s. "unauthorized")
- 401 ("unauthenticated" v.s. "unauthorized")
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- RE: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- RE: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- RE: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- RE: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Question on HTTP 408
- Re: Coalescing #490
- Question on HTTP 408
- Coalescing #490
Monday, 2 June 2014
- Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- RE: ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- ezflate: proposal to reinstitute deflate header compression
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- RE: hpack static table question?
- RE: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: hpack static table question?
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- hpack static table question?
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- RE: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
Sunday, 1 June 2014
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Will HTTP/2.0 be green ?
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- RE: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
Saturday, 31 May 2014
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
Friday, 30 May 2014
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- RE: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-ops-00.txt
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- RE: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-ops-00.txt
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
Thursday, 29 May 2014
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- RE: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- RE: Negotiating compression
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Our Schedule
- RE: Negotiating compression
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- RE: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Our Schedule
- RE: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Header Size? Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Negotiating compression
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
- RE: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Re: Negotiating compression
- Negotiating compression
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: Our Schedule
- RE: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Design FAQs, Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Design FAQs, Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
Monday, 26 May 2014
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Design FAQs, Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-link-method-09.txt
- Design FAQs, Was: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Header fair share, Was: Our Schedule
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- RE: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
- Re: Please admit defeat
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Our Schedule
- large file transfers, was: Please admit defeat
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Please admit defeat (was: Our Schedule)
- Re: Our Schedule
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- RE: explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
Sunday, 25 May 2014
Saturday, 24 May 2014
Friday, 23 May 2014
- RE: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Our Schedule
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
Thursday, 22 May 2014
- Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Stricter TLS Usage in HTTP/2
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: Limiting header block size
- Limiting header block size
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: #429: HPACKing security/privacy related header fields
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
Wednesday, 21 May 2014
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- RE: Minor points in draft 12
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
Tuesday, 20 May 2014
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: Minor points in draft 12
- RE: Minor points in draft 12
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- RE: Minor points in draft 12
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 investigation document
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-03.txt
- Re: unclaimed push streams using up the connection window
Monday, 19 May 2014
- unclaimed push streams using up the connection window
- Re: Minor points in draft 12
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- improved caching in HTTP: new draft
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
Sunday, 18 May 2014
Saturday, 17 May 2014
Friday, 16 May 2014
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: HTTP status code for transaction incomplete???
- HTTP status code for transaction incomplete???
Thursday, 15 May 2014
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Addressing gzip focus
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Addressing gzip focus
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Addressing gzip focus
- Addressing gzip focus
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: #304, was: If-Range and cache validation using Last-Modified
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
Tuesday, 13 May 2014
Monday, 12 May 2014
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HTTP/2 in examples
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: C-E for clients, was: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: C-E for clients, was: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- C-E for clients, was: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: HTTP/2 in examples
- HTTP/2 in examples
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Coalescing and Connection Management
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
Sunday, 11 May 2014
Saturday, 10 May 2014
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- push vs safe methods with payload, Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
Friday, 9 May 2014
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- Re: HEADERS and flow control
- HEADERS and flow control
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
Thursday, 8 May 2014
- Re: Graceful shutdown #458
- Re: Graceful shutdown #458
- Re: Graceful shutdown #458
- Re: Graceful shutdown #458
- Re: Graceful shutdown #458
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: Graceful shutdown #458
- Re: Graceful shutdown #458
- Graceful shutdown #458
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
- Re: PONG (was Re: Why do DATA frames have padding?)
- PONG (was Re: Why do DATA frames have padding?)
- RE: Why do DATA frames have padding?
- Re: Why do DATA frames have padding?
- Re: Why do DATA frames have padding?
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- RE: Why do DATA frames have padding?
- Why do DATA frames have padding?
- END_STREAM flag and trailing headers
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- RE: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: HPACK problems (was http/2 & hpack protocol review)
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
Monday, 5 May 2014
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- RE: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- RE: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- Re: http/2 & hpack protocol review
- http/2 & hpack protocol review
- explicitly authenticated proxy: new draft
Saturday, 3 May 2014
- Minor points in draft 12
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
Friday, 2 May 2014
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: #466 segment compression
- RE: #466 segment compression
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
- Re: Alternative Service Indication
Thursday, 1 May 2014
- RE: #466 segment compression
- Re: #466 segment compression
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: #466 segment compression
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Alternative Service Indication
- Re: Header Field definition is too broad
- Re: Header Field definition is too broad
- Re: Header Field definition is too broad
- Header Field definition is too broad
Wednesday, 30 April 2014
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- RE: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: Making Implicit C-E work.
- Making Implicit C-E work.
- Re: #466 segment compression
- RE: #466 segment compression
- Re: #466 segment compression
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- #466 segment compression
- Re: Alt-Svc header + ALTSVC frame
- Alt-Svc header + ALTSVC frame
Monday, 28 April 2014
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
Saturday, 26 April 2014
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: Remove reserved bits from ALTSVC #467
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
Friday, 25 April 2014
- Remove reserved bits from ALTSVC #467
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- RE: #445: Transfer-Codings
- RE: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
- Reservation and validity of colon-prefixed header keys
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- #423: Security Implications of GZIP
- #429: HPACKing security/privacy related header fields
- #444: Flushing Alt-Svc Cache
- Re: Support for gzip at the server #424 (Consensus Call)
Thursday, 24 April 2014
- Fourth Implementation Draft [was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-12.txt]
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- RE: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-12.txt
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-12.txt
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- RE: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- #445: Transfer-Codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED [#362]
- #460 [was: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries]
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION
- Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION
- Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- RE: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
Monday, 21 April 2014
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION
- Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: PING frame behavior
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: #462: Intermediaries and Alt-Svc [was: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)]
- Re: #462: Intermediaries and Alt-Svc [was: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)]
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- #462: Intermediaries and Alt-Svc [was: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)]
- Re: Ambiguous case in WWW-Authenticate grammar?
- Re: Ambiguous case in WWW-Authenticate grammar?
- Ambiguous case in WWW-Authenticate grammar?
Sunday, 20 April 2014
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: PING frame behavior
- Re: PING frame behavior
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
Saturday, 19 April 2014
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- PING frame behavior
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Frame Length Restrictions
- END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Call for Consensus: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
Friday, 18 April 2014
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- RE: Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- END_SEGMENT and headers, #2
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- RE: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- RE: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries
- Call for Consensus: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Dealing with BLOCKED
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
Thursday, 17 April 2014
- Re: Indicating Chosen Service #443
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Encoding Context Update
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: END_SEGMENT?
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- RE: GZip Content-Encoding / Reopen #404
- END_SEGMENT?
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Diminishing priorities in proposal
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: Diminishing priorities in proposal
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Frame Length Restrictions
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
Wednesday, 16 April 2014
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: Diminishing priorities in proposal
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Diminishing priorities in proposal
- Re: END_SEGMENT and headers
- END_SEGMENT and headers
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
Monday, 14 April 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- RE: GZip Content-Encoding / Reopen #404
- Re: GZip Content-Encoding / Reopen #404
- Re: SETTINGS frames as header blocks?
- GZip Content-Encoding / Reopen #404
- Re: SETTINGS frames as header blocks?
Sunday, 13 April 2014
- SETTINGS frames as header blocks?
- Re: Optimizing Huffman inputs
- Re: Optimizing Huffman inputs
- Re: Optimizing Huffman inputs
- Re: Optimizing Huffman inputs
- Re: Optimizing Huffman inputs
- Re: Optimizing Huffman inputs
- Re: Optimizing Huffman inputs
Saturday, 12 April 2014
Friday, 11 April 2014
- Coalescing and Connection Management
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- RE: Shipping, was: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- decompression at 2 -> 1.1 gateway breaks ranges
- RE: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
Thursday, 10 April 2014
- Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: GOAWAY and proxies
- GOAWAY and proxies
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- RE: #445: Transfer-codings
- RE: #445: Transfer-codings
- RE: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- RE: #445: Transfer-codings - Alternate proposal
- Shipping, was: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
- RE: BLOCKED frame specification
- RE: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- RE: GOOGLE SAVES THE WORLD - Range request utility: Chrome vs FF vs IE vs Safari
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
Tuesday, 8 April 2014
- HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal
- Re: GOOGLE SAVES THE WORLD - Range request utility: Chrome vs FF vs IE vs Safari
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: GOOGLE SAVES THE WORLD - Range request utility: Chrome vs FF vs IE vs Safari
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: I-D Action: draft-lnageleisen-http-chunked-progress-00.txt
- Re: GOOGLE SAVES THE WORLD - Range request utility: Chrome vs FF vs IE vs Safari
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings - Alternate proposal
- Re: I-D Action: draft-lnageleisen-http-chunked-progress-00.txt
- #445: Transfer-codings - Alternate proposal
- GOOGLE SAVES THE WORLD - Range request utility: Chrome vs FF vs IE vs Safari
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
Monday, 7 April 2014
- Re: BLOCKED frame specification
- BLOCKED frame specification
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
Saturday, 5 April 2014
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
Friday, 4 April 2014
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- RE: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- RE: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: review: http2-10
- Re: #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: Alt-Svc with UPGRADE
- #445: Transfer-codings
- Re: New HTTP/2 draft
Thursday, 3 April 2014
- New HTTP/2 draft
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-11.txt
- Re: review: http2-10
- review: http2-10
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-07.txt
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-07.txt
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- Re: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- Re: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- Re: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
- Re: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- RE: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- RE: Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- Re: #421: Mixed Schemes
- Re: #421: Mixed Schemes
- Re: #421: Mixed Schemes
- Re: Padding should be specified for PUSH_PROMISE frames too?
- Padding should be specified for PUSH_PROMISE frames too?
- Re: #421: Mixed Schemes
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- RE: Enable weight of 0
- RE: #436: Enable weight of 0
- Re: #446: alt-svc header field syntax
- #436: Enable weight of 0
- Re: #421: Mixed Schemes
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: #446: alt-svc header field syntax
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
- Re: Enable weight of 0
- Zero weight for 100 CONTINUE, instead of flow control
- Re: #446: alt-svc header field syntax
- Re: #446: alt-svc header field syntax
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: Alt-Svc with UPGRADE
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-01.txt
- Enable weight of 0
- Re: #446: alt-svc header field syntax
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate
- Alt-Svc with UPGRADE
- #446: alt-svc header field syntax
- Re: State of the Protocol (2014-03-31)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: #421: Mixed Schemes
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- Re: Alt-Svc related Chromium bug report (proxy related)
- TLS Renegotiation and HTTP/2 (#363)