Tuesday, 30 September 2014
- Re: null ciphers in 9.2.2
- Re: null ciphers in 9.2.2
- Re: null ciphers in 9.2.2
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: null ciphers in 9.2.2
- Re: User-Agent header field and quoted-string
- Re: User-Agent header field and quoted-string
- Re: User-Agent header field and quoted-string
- User-Agent header field and quoted-string
- Re: #591: Permissible states for extension frames
- Re: #601: HTTP2-Settings header field name
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: null ciphers in 9.2.2
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-03.txt
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-03.txt
- RE: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- RE: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- Re: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- Re: upgrade prose bug
- Re: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- Re: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- Re: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- Re: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #603: Frame layout
Monday, 29 September 2014
- RE: #603: Frame layout
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: Getting it out the door. Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- SETTINGS frame - not documented as peer-to-peer only
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: Frame size errors and GOAWAY prose still ambiguous
- Re: upgrade prose bug
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- Frame size errors and GOAWAY prose still ambiguous
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- RE: #603: Frame layout
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Getting it out the door. Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: HTTP/2 and Websockets
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- HTTP/2 and Websockets
- upgrade prose bug
- HTTP/2 REFUSED_STREAM and applications
Sunday, 28 September 2014
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Getting it out the door. Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Getting it out the door. Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
Saturday, 27 September 2014
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Headers vs Response Code for 2NN Contents Of Related
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #601: HTTP2-Settings header field name
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: #603: Frame layout
Friday, 26 September 2014
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- RE: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: #603: Frame layout
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: #591: Permissible states for extension frames
- Re: #601: HTTP2-Settings header field name
- Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: null ciphers in 9.2.2
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- RE: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- editorial changes committed
- #603: Frame layout
- #578: Header Table and Static Table Indices Switched
- #591: Permissible states for extension frames
- null ciphers in 9.2.2
- #601: HTTP2-Settings header field name
- Re: Zero padding
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers
- Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- PUSH_PROMISE and load balancers
Thursday, 25 September 2014
- RE: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- RE: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- RE: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Wednesday, 24 September 2014
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- RE: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- RE: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-01.txt
- Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Discussion of 9.2.2
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Zero padding
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Frame size errors
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
- Re: Frame size errors
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- RE: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- RE: Frame size errors
- Zero padding
- Frame size errors
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Fwd: [http-auth] WGLC for draft-ietf-httpauth-hoba-04
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Monday, 22 September 2014
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- RE: Feedback on Fallback
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Fwd: [http-auth] WGLC for draft-ietf-httpauth-hoba-04
- Re: Feedback on Fallback
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- RE: Feedback on Fallback
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Saturday, 20 September 2014
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- RE: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- registration requirement for range units, was: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)
- RE: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Friday, 19 September 2014
- Re: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Thursday, 18 September 2014
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Wednesday, 17 September 2014
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
- Re: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)
- Re: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)
- Re: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-01.txt
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-01.txt
- Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)
Monday, 15 September 2014
Friday, 12 September 2014
- Re: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
Thursday, 11 September 2014
- Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: h2 Connection Preface
- Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
- Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
- Re: h2 Connection Preface
- Re: h2 Connection Preface
- RE: h2 Connection Preface
- Re: h2 Connection Preface
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
- Re: h2 Connection Preface
- Re: h2 Connection Preface
- Re: h2 Connection Preface
- RE: h2 Connection Preface
- RE: h2 Connection Preface
- RE: h2 Connection Preface
- RE: h2 Connection Preface
- RE: h2 Connection Preface
- h2 Connection Preface
- Re: Connection: header in HTTP/2
- Re: Connection: header in HTTP/2
- Re: Connection: header in HTTP/2
- Re: Connection: header in HTTP/2
- Re: Connection: header in HTTP/2
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
Monday, 8 September 2014
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Connection: header in HTTP/2
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
Sunday, 7 September 2014
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- 303 for paging; was Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
Saturday, 6 September 2014
- Re: Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
Friday, 5 September 2014
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- RE: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: Editorial notes on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-02
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Huffman [was: Re: h2 header field names]
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Editorial notes on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-02
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: http2-14
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: h2 header field names
- See Other vs Contents of Related, was: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- 9.2.2 Cipher fallback and FF<->Jetty interop problem
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- http2-14
- Re: h2 padding
Thursday, 4 September 2014
- Re: Rejecting messages with illegal characters in header fields (was Re: h2 header field names)
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: Rejecting messages with illegal characters in header fields (was Re: h2 header field names)
- Re: Rejecting messages with illegal characters in header fields (was Re: h2 header field names)
- Rejecting messages with illegal characters in header fields (was Re: h2 header field names)
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: Reporting interop issues
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: h2 header field names
- RE: h2 padding
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 definition of HTTP2-Settings
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 padding
- JSON encoding, was: Quick feedback on draft-nottingham-web-proxy-desc-00
- Re:Quick feedback on draft-nottingham-web-proxy-desc-00
- Quick feedback on draft-nottingham-web-proxy-desc-00
- Re: Ending streams/connections
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: Ending streams/connections
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 header field names
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: HPACK WGLC feedback
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 definition of HTTP2-Settings
- Ending streams/connections
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
- Re: h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 definition of HTTP2-Settings
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: h2 padding
- Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
- LC process, was: h2 priority
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: Reporting interop issues
- Reporting interop issues
- Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
Monday, 1 September 2014
- Re: HPACK WGLC feedback
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 priority
- RE: HPACK WGLC feedback
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 use of Upgrade
- h2 definition of HTTP2-Settings
- h2 use of Upgrade
- Re: h2 frame layout
- h2 header field names
- h2 requirements on authoritative responses
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 priority
- Re: h2 frame layout
Sunday, 31 August 2014
- Re: h2 frame layout
- h2 priority
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 padding
- HPACK WGLC feedback: appendices
- Re: HPACK WGLC feedback
- HPACK->HTTP/2 dependency
- HPACK WGLC feedback
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 frame layout
Saturday, 30 August 2014
Friday, 29 August 2014
- Re: h2 frame layout
- Re: h2 frame layout
- h2 frame layout
- Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
- Re: HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
- RE: HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
- RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09, 4.2. Header Field Representation Processing | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09, 5.3. Entry Eviction when Adding New Entries
- RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09, 3.3.2. Header Table
- RE: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- Re: HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
- Re: Working Group Last Call: RFC7238bis
- RE: Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Re: HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
Thursday, 28 August 2014
- Re: Miscellaneous Comments on -14
- RE: Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Re: Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Re: HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
- Re: HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
- RE: Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Re: HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
- HPACK, Draft 09, Integer Representation
- RE: Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Re: Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Re: Working Group Last Call: RFC7238bis
- Re: Working Group Last Call: RFC7238bis
- Re: Working Group Last Call: RFC7238bis
- Working Group Last Call: RFC7238bis
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
- Re: Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Clarification on HTTP/1.1 Server Response to HTTP/2 Client Connection Preface
- Re: Push and Caching
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- RE: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- RE: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- RE: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- RE: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- Re: 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
- 2NN Contents Of Related (303 Shortcut)
Monday, 25 August 2014
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: Push and Caching
Sunday, 24 August 2014
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Re: Alt-Svc-Used indicator granularity (ext#34)
Saturday, 23 August 2014
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: handling bad priority parameters
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: Alt-Svc-Used indicator granularity (ext#34)
Friday, 22 August 2014
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Alt-Svc-Used indicator granularity (ext#34)
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- RE: Push and Caching
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: handling bad priority parameters
- RE: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- handling bad priority parameters
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
Thursday, 21 August 2014
- RE: Push and Caching
- RE: Push and Caching
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: h2 proxy and connection flow control
- h2 proxy and connection flow control
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc7238bis-00.txt
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
- RE: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: Ciphersuite requirements ext#26
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
- Re: Ciphersuite requirements ext#26
- Re: Alt-Svc: alternatives assigned by alternatives
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Ciphersuite requirements ext#26
- Re: Alt-Svc: alternatives assigned by alternatives
- Re: Push and Caching
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Push and Caching
- Re: Alt-Svc: alternatives assigned by alternatives
- Re: HTTP/2 Push deployed on webtide.com
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
- Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
- Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
- Alt-Svc: alternatives assigned by alternatives
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
- Re: HTTP/2 Push deployed on webtide.com
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
Monday, 18 August 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 Push deployed on webtide.com
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol-00.txt
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Re: Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- Alt-Svc alternative cache invalidation (ext#16)
- HTTP/2 Push deployed on webtide.com
- Re: updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
Sunday, 17 August 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
Saturday, 16 August 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
Friday, 15 August 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: TLS over http2 frames
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- RE: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- RE: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Re: TLS over http2 frames
- HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
- TLS over http2 frames
- Re: Feedback on Fallback
Thursday, 14 August 2014
Wednesday, 13 August 2014
- Re: Miscellaneous Comments on -14
- RE: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)
- Re: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)
Tuesday, 12 August 2014
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: Hawaii meeting
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Hawaii meeting
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
Monday, 11 August 2014
- Permissible states for extension frames #591
- updated http 1.1 rfcs and hop-by-hop
- Re: HTTP2 Stream timeouts?
Sunday, 10 August 2014
Friday, 8 August 2014
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
Thursday, 7 August 2014
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- RE: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: Static Table Entries
- RE: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Re: Static Table Entries
- Static Table Entries
- Re: HTTP2 Stream timeouts?
- HTTP2 Stream timeouts?
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- RE: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Fwd: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-paws-protocol-14.txt> (Protocol to Access White-Space (PAWS) Databases) to Proposed Standard
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- RE: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
Wednesday, 6 August 2014
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- Re: HPACK: pseudo-headers ordering
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- RE: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- RE: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- Re: stream state management was: 1xx (informational) responses affect on stream management
- Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
- HPACK: pseudo-headers ordering
- stream state management was: 1xx (informational) responses affect on stream management
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Compression ratio of 09 (was: Reference set in HPACK)
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- HPACK opcode bit patterns
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: 1xx (informational) responses affect on stream management
- Re: 1xx (informational) responses affect on stream management
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: 1xx (informational) responses affect on stream management
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- RE: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- Re: 1xx (informational) responses affect on stream management
- legality of Transfer-Encoding: chunked bodies in HTTP/2
- 1xx (informational) responses affect on stream management
- Re: Section 6.9 (WINDOW_UPDATE), shouldn't it always be a connection error if window increment is 0?
- Section 6.9 (WINDOW_UPDATE), shouldn't it always be a connection error if window increment is 0?
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: 100 Continue editorial comment
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- 100 Continue editorial comment
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Monday, 4 August 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Editorial comments (was: WGLC)
- HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices
- Miscellaneous Comments on -14
- RE: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
- RE: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
Sunday, 3 August 2014
- Fwd: [apps-discuss] Call For Adoption: draft-nottingham-http-problem
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Process? Was: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
Saturday, 2 August 2014
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14, 10.5.1. Limits on Header Block Size
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-link-method-10.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-snell-link-method-10.txt
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
Friday, 1 August 2014
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- h2-14 live on webtide.com
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-snell-link-method-10.txt
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14, 8.1.3. Examples
- RE: REFUSED_STREAM => RETRY_STREAM (editorial) was: RE: hpack table size 0
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: REFUSED_STREAM => RETRY_STREAM (editorial) was: RE: hpack table size 0
- Re: REFUSED_STREAM => RETRY_STREAM (editorial) was: RE: hpack table size 0
- Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14, 8.1.3. Examples
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09, 3.3.2. Header Table
- Re: REFUSED_STREAM => RETRY_STREAM (editorial) was: RE: hpack table size 0
- s/RST_STREAM/TERMINATE_STREAM (editorial) was: Naming Consistency (editorial)
- RE: Naming Consistency (editorial)
- RE: REFUSED_STREAM => RETRY_STREAM (editorial) was: RE: hpack table size 0
- Repository for HTTP/1.1 Issues
- Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
- Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14 and draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09
- RE: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
Thursday, 31 July 2014
- Re: Why "MUST" encoder emit Context Update
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-14. 5.1. Stream States
- RE: Why "MUST" encoder emit Context Update
- RE: Why "MUST" encoder emit Context Update
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-09.txt
- Re: Why "MUST" encoder emit Context Update
Wednesday, 30 July 2014
Tuesday, 29 July 2014
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- RE: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Header Parsing Profile
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Re: Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- RE: Preliminary minutes from Toronto
- Re: Header Parsing Profile
- Header Parsing Profile
- ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Call for Adoption: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00
- Preliminary minutes from Toronto
Monday, 28 July 2014
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- RE: consensus on :query ?
- RE: Pseudo end-to-end connections considered harmful
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
- Re: Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
- Moving RFC7238 (308 Status Code) to Proposed Standard
Friday, 25 July 2014
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
Thursday, 24 July 2014
- Re: TLS 1.2 MTI
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- RE: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- RE: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Pseudo end-to-end connections considered harmful
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Consequences of removing the reference set
- Re: Pseudo end-to-end connections considered harmful
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: Pseudo end-to-end connections considered harmful
- Re: Pseudo end-to-end connections considered harmful
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Pseudo end-to-end connections considered harmful
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- :scheme, was: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
Wednesday, 23 July 2014
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: consensus on :query ?
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: referring to the HTTP spec
- Re: referring to the HTTP spec
- referring to the HTTP spec
- TLS 1.2 MTI
- Fwd: [apps-discuss] Last Call conduct redux (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard)
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption
- draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Recovery from decompression failure (was: Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues))
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-01.txt
Monday, 21 July 2014
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- RE: Priority Tree Synchronization Draft
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Issues #555 and #556 (:query and frame sync)
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: proxies are dangerous slide
- Re: proxies are dangerous slide
- Re: proxies are dangerous slide
- proxies are dangerous slide
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
Sunday, 20 July 2014
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: #555: frame synchronization
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- #555: frame synchronization
- Re: consensus on :query ?
- #549: END_STREAM flag on CONTINUATION
- #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.5 Malformed Requests and Responses, response of HEAD request
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Priority Tree Synchronization Draft
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Re: Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
Saturday, 19 July 2014
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
Friday, 18 July 2014
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- RE: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- RE: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
Thursday, 17 July 2014
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Ciphersuites (was Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites)
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Mandatory to implement cipher suites
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: 5.5 Extending HTTP/2, WS_OVER_HTTP/2 | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- RE: "Upgrade: h2c"
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Mandatory to implement cipher suites
Wednesday, 16 July 2014
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Possible to support only HTTP/2 for "http" URIs? "https" URIs?
- Re: Possible to support only HTTP/2 for "http" URIs? "https" URIs?
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: Possible to support only HTTP/2 for "http" URIs? "https" URIs?
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-02, 5. The Alt-Svc-Used HTTP Header Field
- REFUSED_STREAM => RETRY_STREAM (editorial) was: RE: hpack table size 0
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- RE: "Upgrade: h2c"
- RE: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: "Upgrade: h2c"
- RE: "Upgrade: h2c"
- Re: "Upgrade: h2c"
- Re: "Upgrade: h2c"
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- "Upgrade: h2c"
- Re: #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Possible to support only HTTP/2 for "http" URIs? "https" URIs?
- Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Options for CONTINUATION-related issues
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- #551: Limiting header sizes
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- RE: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: http/2 and "extensions"
- http/2 and "extensions"
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- RE: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- RE: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Treating paths and queries differently, was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Initial agenda for Toronto
- Re: Treating paths and queries differently, was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Treating paths and queries differently, was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- RE: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Initial agenda for Toronto
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Editor-ready: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
Monday, 14 July 2014
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Wiki for CONTINUATION Proposals
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-jfv-00.txt
- Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-jfv-00.txt
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- RE: PRIORITY extension
- RE: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-jfv-00.txt
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-http-jfv-00.txt
- Re: Initial agenda for Toronto
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- RE: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- RE: #557 Intra-Message HEADERS frames was: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- RE: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- RE: PRIORITY extension
- RE: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Wiki for CONTINUATION Proposals
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
Sunday, 13 July 2014
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: #557 Intra-Message HEADERS frames was: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: #557 Intra-Message HEADERS frames was: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: reserved flags and extensions
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- reserved flags and extensions
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
Saturday, 12 July 2014
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- #557 Intra-Message HEADERS frames was: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- PRIORITY extension
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Issues 555 and 556
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4050)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- RE: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Re: Wiki for CONTINUATION Proposals
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Wiki for CONTINUATION Proposals
- Call for Consensus: Remove "reference set" from HPACK (to address #552)
- Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: A rough analysis of the impact of headers on DoS
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: A rough analysis of the impact of headers on DoS
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: A rough analysis of the impact of headers on DoS
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Sending priority from a server
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Sending priority from a server
Friday, 11 July 2014
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Sending priority from a server
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- RE: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- A rough analysis of the impact of headers on DoS
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- RE: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- RE: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- RE: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-latest, 4.1 Header Field Representation Processing
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- RE: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)
- Re: Initial agenda for Toronto
- RE: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Bad Actors, was: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- willchan's thoughts on continuations, jumbo frames, etc after *only skimming* the threads
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Bad Actors, was: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- RE: Large Frame Proposal
- RE: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
Thursday, 10 July 2014
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.
- Re: "Can we please append a byte to the HEADERS frame"
- Re: "Can we please append a byte to the HEADERS frame"
- Re: "Can we please append a byte to the HEADERS frame"
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- "Can we please append a byte to the HEADERS frame"
- RE: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- RE: Compressing HTTP headers
- RE: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- RE: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- RE: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 4.3 Header Compression and Decompression, 10.6 Use of Compression
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
Wednesday, 9 July 2014
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 4.3 Header Compression and Decompression, 10.6 Use of Compression
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- RE: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- RE: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: Ambiguity parsing WWW-Authenticate value
- Re: Compressing HTTP headers
- Re: Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Ambiguity parsing WWW-Authenticate value
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Compressing HTTP headers
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frame Proposal - WINDOW UPDATE
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Another CONTINUATION Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Another CONTINUATION Proposal
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Service Bindings DNS Records (draft-nygren-service-bindings-00)
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal - WINDOW UPDATE
- Re: Large Frame Proposal - WINDOW UPDATE
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal - WINDOW UPDATE
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
Monday, 7 July 2014
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Compressing HTTP headers
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1 HTTP Request/Response Exchange
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Compressing HTTP headers
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1 HTTP Request/Response Exchange
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 6.2 HEADERS again
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Compressing HTTP headers
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION - option #4
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION - option #4
Saturday, 5 July 2014
Friday, 4 July 2014
Sunday, 6 July 2014
- draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1 HTTP Request/Response Exchange
- draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 6.2 HEADERS again
Monday, 7 July 2014
- RE: #541: CONTINUATION - option #4
- RE: YAC Proposal
- RE: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION - option #4
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION - option #4
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: Large Frame Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION - option #4
- Large Frame Proposal
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Saturday, 5 July 2014
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 6.8 GOAWAY
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
Friday, 4 July 2014
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 6.2 HEADERS, 6.10 CONTINUATION, END_SEGMENT (0x2)
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-02.txt
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-proxy-problem-01.txt
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
Thursday, 3 July 2014
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 6.2 HEADERS, 6.10 CONTINUATION, END_SEGMENT (0x2)
- RE: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 6.2 HEADERS, 6.10 CONTINUATION, END_SEGMENT (0x2)
- Re: Size of window variables
- Re: Size of window variables
- RE: Questions about SETTINGS and SETTINGS ACK
- Re: Size of window variables
- Questions about SETTINGS and SETTINGS ACK
- Re: WINDOW_UPDATE(0) ?
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Size of window variables
- Re: Size of window variables
- Size of window variables
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control
- RE: Reference set in HPACK
- RE: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem (and not arguing about CONTINUATION frames)
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: YAC Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- advanced uses of TLS-renegotiation & draft-thomson specs
- H2 HEADERS and flow control
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: WINDOW_UPDATE(0) ?
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: WINDOW_UPDATE(0) ?
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- WINDOW_UPDATE(0) ?
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: YAC Proposal
- RE: YAC Proposal
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: YAC Proposal
- RE: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- RE: YAC Proposal
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- RE: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- RE: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: YAC Proposal
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
- Changing the Internet was: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem (and not arguing about CONTINUATION frames)
- Re: YAC Proposal
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- YAC Proposal
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem (and not arguing about CONTINUATION frames)
- Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- RE: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- RE: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- RE: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- RE: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- HEADERS/CONTINUATION data point for CUPS and HTTP/2 (in case anyone is interested)
- Re: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Typos in draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-08 examples...
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- HTTP/3, was: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- RE: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- #541: CONTINUATION
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Blackmail??? Was: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Blackmail??? Was: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Blackmail??? Was: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- RE: ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- RE: #529: Working around concurrency limits
- RE: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: agenda/charter brainstorming
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- RE: Reference set in HPACK
- RE: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- RE: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- trailers and pseudo-headers
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- ext#9: OppSec and Proxies
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- ext#7 / ext#8: multiple alt-svc
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes
- Reference set in HPACK
- Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- #529: Working around concurrency limits
- #537: Remove segments (consensus call)
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: CRLF requirement
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- HTTP/2 DoS Vulnerability (Was: HTTP/2 response completed before its request)
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem (and not arguing about CONTINUATION frames)
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Participating to the WG (Was: Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem)
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: Another CONTINUATION Proposal
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: Another CONTINUATION Proposal
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- RE: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- HTTP/2 response completed before its request
- Re: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Another CONTINUATION Proposal
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CRLF requirement
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: CRLF requirement
- RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- RE: hpack table size 0
- RE: #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- RE: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- RE: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- RE: I-D Action: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: hpack table size 0
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- #539: Priority from server to client
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: why not multiple, short-lived HTTP/2 connections?
- Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change
- Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem
- #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4031)