ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2019 by date

Sunday, 31 March 2019

• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Saturday, 30 March 2019

• Re: Required Domain proposal for Additional Certificates Ryan Sleevi
• Re: Required Domain proposal for Additional Certificates Nick Sullivan
• Re: Required Domain proposal for Additional Certificates Ryan Sleevi

Friday, 29 March 2019

• Required Domain proposal for Additional Certificates Nick Sullivan

Thursday, 28 March 2019

• Re: Formalizing the HTTP State Tokens proposal. Kari Hurtta
• Fwd: [Ietf-message-headers] Requesting provisional registration for AMP-Cache-Transform header Devin Mullins
• Formalizing the HTTP State Tokens proposal. Mike West

Wednesday, 27 March 2019

• Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4189) Julian Reschke
• Re: Interoping draft 20 HTTP/3 Lucas Pardue
• Re: Interoping draft 20 HTTP/3 Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: Interoping draft 20 HTTP/3 Lucas Pardue
• RE: Interoping draft 20 HTTP/3 dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com
• Interoping draft 20 HTTP/3 Lucas Pardue

Monday, 25 March 2019

• [Errata Rejected] RFC7234 (5564) RFC Errata System
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-variants-05.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org

Friday, 22 March 2019

• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Eric Kinnear

Saturday, 23 March 2019

• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Eric Kinnear

Sunday, 24 March 2019

• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Saturday, 23 March 2019

• Fwd: IETF 104 Remote Participation Information Mark Nottingham
• :protocol (was: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions) Kari Hurtta
• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Kari Hurtta
• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Andy Green

Friday, 22 March 2019

• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Eric Kinnear
• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Andy Green
• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Kari Hurtta
• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Kari Hurtta
• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Andy Green
• Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5599) Julian Reschke
• Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5623) Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 20 March 2019

• [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7231 (5541) RFC Errata System
• Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Andy Green
• draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions Martin Thomson

Sunday, 17 March 2019

• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Thursday, 14 March 2019

• Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Requesting provisional registration for AMP-Cache-Transform header Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 13 March 2019

• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Yoav Weiss
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Soni L.
• Re: draft-richsalz-httpbis-https-downgrade-00.txt Erik Nygren
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Amos Jeffries
• Re: draft-richsalz-httpbis-https-downgrade-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 12 March 2019

• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Daniel Veditz
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Daniel Stenberg
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Daniel Veditz
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Daniel Veditz
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Soni L.
• Re: Fwd: draft-richsalz-httpbis-https-downgrade-00.txt Amos Jeffries
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Amos Jeffries
• Re: Fwd: draft-richsalz-httpbis-https-downgrade-00.txt Alessandro Ghedini
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Daniel Stenberg
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Poul-Henning Kamp
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Sebastiaan Deckers
• Fwd: draft-richsalz-httpbis-https-downgrade-00.txt Erik Nygren
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Soni L.
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Daniel Stenberg

Monday, 11 March 2019

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Mark Nottingham
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Jeffrey Yasskin
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-client-hints-07.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: The Refresh header is still with us Soni L.
• The Refresh header is still with us Daniel Stenberg

Sunday, 10 March 2019

• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Saturday, 9 March 2019

• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-04.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-04.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-04.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org

Friday, 8 March 2019

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Mark Nottingham
• DRAFT agenda for IETF 104 Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 7 March 2019

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Lucas Pardue
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-rand-access-live-04.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Martin Thomson

Wednesday, 6 March 2019

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Lucas Pardue
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Martin Thomson
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Stefan Eissing

Tuesday, 5 March 2019

• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-http-hx-uri-00.txt Martin Thomson

Sunday, 3 March 2019

• Re: When using HTTP over SCTP, what do I put in CGI's REMOTE_ADDR? Michael Tuexen
• When using HTTP over SCTP, what do I put in CGI's REMOTE_ADDR? Soni L.
• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Friday, 1 March 2019

• Re: [WIP/Idea] A protocol for securing CDN-related communications Ian Swett

Wednesday, 27 February 2019

• Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (5620) Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 26 February 2019

• Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00.txt Alessandro Ghedini
• Re: HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Stefan Eissing
• RE: HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Mike Bishop

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

• Re: Making sure the RFC is good for Qwilt [WAS Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header] Shmulik Bibi Biran
• Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Requesting provisional registration for AMP-Cache-Transform header Devin Mullins

Sunday, 24 February 2019

• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Thursday, 21 February 2019

• Re: [WIP/Idea] A protocol for securing CDN-related communications Soni L.
• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 20 February 2019

• Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00.txt Patrick McManus
• Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-proxy-status-00.txt Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 19 February 2019

• Re: [WIP/Idea] A protocol for securing CDN-related communications Scott Morgan
• Re: [WIP/Idea] A protocol for securing CDN-related communications Soni L.
• Re: [WIP/Idea] A protocol for securing CDN-related communications Ian Swett
• Re: [WIP/Idea] A protocol for securing CDN-related communications Patrick McManus

Monday, 18 February 2019

• [WIP/Idea] A protocol for securing CDN-related communications Soni L.
• Re: HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Cory Benfield
• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Cory Benfield
• Re: HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Stefan Eissing

Sunday, 17 February 2019

• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Friday, 15 February 2019

• RE: HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Mike Bishop
• Re: HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Graham King

Thursday, 14 February 2019

• RE: HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Mike Bishop

Wednesday, 13 February 2019

• Re: Moving 2817 to Historic Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards Architect)

Thursday, 14 February 2019

• HTTP/2 re-sync connection level flow control? Graham King
• Re: Signed HTTP Exchanges use case Andy Green
• Re: Signed HTTP Exchanges use case Martin Thomson

Wednesday, 13 February 2019

• Re: Moving 2817 to Historic Mark Nottingham
• Re: Moving 2817 to Historic Michael Sweet
• Signed HTTP Exchanges use case Phil Archer
• Re: Moving 2817 to Historic Willy Tarreau
• Re: Moving 2817 to Historic Michael Sweet
• Re: Data motivating CH? (From PING) Yoav Weiss
• Re: Moving 2817 to Historic Julian Reschke
• Moving 2817 to Historic Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

• Data motivating CH? (From PING) Pete Snyder

Monday, 11 February 2019

• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Willy Tarreau
• RE: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Mike Bishop
• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Stefan Eissing
• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Martin Thomson
• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Willy Tarreau

Sunday, 10 February 2019

• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Martin Thomson
• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Saturday, 9 February 2019

• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Willy Tarreau

Friday, 8 February 2019

• RE: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Mike Bishop
• Re: Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Willy Tarreau
• Are HTTP/2 state changes atomic with respect to SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS? Cory Benfield

Wednesday, 6 February 2019

• Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5623) Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 5 February 2019

• Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5623) Julian Reschke
• [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5623) RFC Errata System
• Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with COMMENT) forrest mckay

Monday, 4 February 2019

• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-02.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with COMMENT) Eric Rescorla
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Eric Rescorla
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 3 February 2019

• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Friday, 1 February 2019

• Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (5620) Julian Reschke
• [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (5620) RFC Errata System
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Eric Rescorla

Thursday, 31 January 2019

• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Chris Lemmons

Wednesday, 30 January 2019

• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Lucas Pardue
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Lucas Pardue
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Amos Jeffries
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Amos Jeffries
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Lucas Pardue
• RE: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Mike Bishop

Tuesday, 29 January 2019

• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick McManus
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Lucas Pardue
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick McManus
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Lucas Pardue
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Dmitri Tikhonov
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Subodh Iyengar
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Ilya Grigorik
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Ian Swett
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Subodh Iyengar
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Martin J. Dürst
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Martin J. Dürst
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Subodh Iyengar
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Eric Rescorla
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Amos Jeffries
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Eric Rescorla
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Mark Nottingham
• RE: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Mike Bishop

Monday, 28 January 2019

• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Ilya Grigorik
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Lucas Pardue
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Mark Nottingham
• HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal Patrick Meenan
• I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-header-00.txt internet-drafts@ietf.org
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Mark Nottingham
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Eric Rescorla

Sunday, 27 January 2019

• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Mark Nottingham
• Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Eric Rescorla
• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Saturday, 26 January 2019

• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Martin Thomson
• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Patrick McManus
• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Martin Thomson

Friday, 25 January 2019

• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Patrick McManus
• Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header Tommy Pauly
• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Willy Tarreau

Thursday, 24 January 2019

• Re: Cache Digests status Martin Thomson
• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Alcides Viamontes E
• Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ? Willy Tarreau
• Re: Cache Digests status Lucas Pardue
• Re: Cache Digests status Sebastiaan Deckers
• Re: Cache Digests status block.rxckin.beats@gmail.com

Wednesday, 23 January 2019

• Re: Cache Digests status Loïc Hoguin

Thursday, 24 January 2019

• Re: Conflicting MUST in RFC7540 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Conflicting MUST in RFC7540 Martin Thomson
• Re: Conflicting MUST in RFC7540 Willy Tarreau
• Re: Conflicting MUST in RFC7540 Martin Thomson
• Conflicting MUST in RFC7540 Willy Tarreau

Tuesday, 22 January 2019

• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Julian Reschke
• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Mark Nottingham

Monday, 21 January 2019

• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Julian Reschke

Sunday, 20 January 2019

• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Mark Nottingham
• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Julian Reschke
• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Tuesday, 15 January 2019

• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Mark Nottingham
• Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header Mark Nottingham
• URL vs URI , was: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Martin J. Dürst

Monday, 14 January 2019

• Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header Matthew Stock
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Mike West
• Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header Thomas Peterson
• Cache Digests status Mark Nottingham

Sunday, 13 January 2019

• Re: Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header Lucas Pardue
• Call for Adoption: Cache HTTP Response Header Tommy Pauly
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Martin J. Dürst
• Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5599) Willy Tarreau
• Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5599) Mark Nottingham
• [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (5599) RFC Errata System
• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Thursday, 10 January 2019

• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Mark Baker
• Re: SH: Integer limits Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 9 January 2019

• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Patrick McManus
• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Michael Sweet
• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Tommy Pauly
• Re: BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Patrick McManus
• BCP56bis: advice for using status codes in applications Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 8 January 2019

• RE: Security Model, Secondary Certs, and ORIGIN Mike Bishop
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Roberto Polli
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Yoav Weiss
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Martin Thomson
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Mark Nottingham
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Ilya Grigorik
• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Julian Reschke

Monday, 7 January 2019

• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Migrating some high-entropy HTTP headers to Client Hints. Mike West

Sunday, 6 January 2019

• Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 Julian Reschke
• Weekly github digest (HTTP Working Group Specifications) Github Notifications

Thursday, 20 December 2018

• Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-cdn-loop-01: (with COMMENT) Warren Kumari

Last message date: Sunday, 31 March 2019 00:45:50 UTC