w3c-dist-auth@w3.org from October to December 2004 by date

Tuesday, 28 December 2004

• Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Stefan Eissing

Monday, 27 December 2004

• Re: qutoa vs disk space, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: qutoa vs disk space, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Lisa Dusseault

Friday, 24 December 2004

• Re: Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Elias Sinderson
• Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Julian Reschke
• qutoa vs disk space, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt, was: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Brian Korver

Thursday, 23 December 2004

• RE: precondition naming [was Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt] Jim Whitehead

Wednesday, 22 December 2004

• Re: precondition naming [was Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt] Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt, was: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt, was: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Brian Korver

Tuesday, 21 December 2004

• [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu

Saturday, 18 December 2004

• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: question about MOVE and COPY overwriting folders Geoffrey M Clemm

Friday, 17 December 2004

• question about MOVE and COPY overwriting folders John Reese

Thursday, 16 December 2004

• Re: Response when no matching resource was found Julian Reschke
• Re: Response when no matching resource was found Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Response when no matching resource was found Julian Reschke
• Re: Response when no matching resource was found Bernard Desruisseaux

Tuesday, 14 December 2004

• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• RE: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Jim Whitehead
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Geoffrey M Clemm
• RE: REBIND and lock token submission example Jim Whitehead

Monday, 13 December 2004

• Re: REBIND and lock token submission example Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: status of BIND issue 2.6_when_do_ids_change Julian Reschke
• RE: status of BIND issue 2.6_when_do_ids_change Jim Whitehead
• RE: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Jim Whitehead
• RE: REBIND and lock token submission example Jim Whitehead

Friday, 10 December 2004

• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• Fwd: Proceedings from WebDAV from IETF-61 Lisa Dusseault
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• status of BIND issue 2.6_when_do_ids_change Julian Reschke
• Re: REBIND and lock token submission example Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 70] New: REBIND arguments are like BIND Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• RE: [Bug 70] New: REBIND arguments are like BIND Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Brian Korver
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Brian Korver
• REBIND and lock token submission example Jim Whitehead
• RE: [Bug 70] New: REBIND arguments are like BIND Jim Whitehead

Thursday, 9 December 2004

• Re: WebDAV, URL encoding and current Windows clients Jim Luther
• Re: WebDAV, URL encoding and current Windows clients Stefan Eissing
• RE: WebDAV, URL encoding and current Windows clients Jim Whitehead
• Re: WebDAV, URL encoding and current Windows clients Julian Reschke
• WebDAV, URL encoding and current Windows clients Frank Lowney
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Lisa Dusseault
• RE: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Jim Whitehead
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Jim Whitehead

Wednesday, 8 December 2004

• unempl claim mishandled Betty D Smith
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Geoffrey M Clemm
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Jim Whitehead
• RE: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Jim Whitehead

Tuesday, 7 December 2004

• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Stefan Eissing
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Geoffrey M Clemm

Monday, 6 December 2004

• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Jim Whitehead
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• RE: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Jim Whitehead
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Julian Reschke
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Jim Whitehead
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Stefan Eissing
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Jim Whitehead
• [Bug 70] REBIND arguments should be like BIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Julian Reschke
• [Bug 70] REBIND arguments should be like BIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 70] REBIND arguments should be like BIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: REBIND example (was Re: Locks and loopback bindings) Geoffrey M Clemm
• [Bug 70] REBIND arguments should be like BIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• [Bug 70] New: REBIND arguments are like BIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu

Saturday, 4 December 2004

• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Julian Reschke

Friday, 3 December 2004

• Re: [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Julian Reschke
• RE: Locks and loopback bindings Jim Whitehead
• RE: [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND Jim Whitehead
• Re: [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND Lisa Dusseault
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• Re: Locks and loopback bindings Julian Reschke
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• Locks and loopback bindings Jim Whitehead
• Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• RE: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings Jim Whitehead
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• RE: [Bug 5] Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified Jim Whitehead
• [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• Re: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• BIND issue 2.6_when_do_ids_change, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• Re: [Bug 5] Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified Julian Reschke
• Re: Current status of 2518bis? Stefan Eissing
• Re: Specification philosophies Stefan Eissing
• [Bug 5] Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: [Bug 5] Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified Geoffrey M Clemm
• [Bug 5] Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 4] Privilege interactions need to be defined for BIND and UNBIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks. bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu

Thursday, 2 December 2004

• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• BIND issue 6_rebind_intro broke REBIND Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: BIND issue 2.3_copy_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: BIND issue 2.3_copy_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• BIND issue 2.3_copy_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• Re: Current status of 2518bis? Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Specification philosophies Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Specification philosophies Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: Specification philosophies Geoffrey M Clemm
• Current status of 2518bis? Jim Whitehead
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: Specification philosophies Jim Whitehead
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: Specification philosophies Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Specification philosophies Julian Reschke
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Specification philosophies Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Bindings and permissions Lisa Dusseault
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead

Wednesday, 1 December 2004

• RE: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• Re: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• RE: BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• Re: Bindings and permissions Roy T. Fielding

Tuesday, 30 November 2004

• Bindings and permissions Lisa Dusseault
• BIND issue 3.2_example, was: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Lisa Dusseault
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Re: Comments on bind-08 Geoffrey M Clemm
• RE: Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead

Monday, 29 November 2004

• Re: Comments on bind-08 Julian Reschke
• Comments on bind-08 Jim Whitehead
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08.txt Julian Reschke
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• Estimate for developing a WebDav server John Varghese

Saturday, 27 November 2004

• [Bug 69] New: Formatting lost in appendix B.2 bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 68] New: Reference to XML spec bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 67] New: non-ASCII characters bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 66] New: references style bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 65] New: Table of Contents missing bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 64] New: Incorrect IETF boilerplate bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 63] New: typo in 13.16 "name" line bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 62] New: href format bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 61] New: invalid lock token in example bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 60] New: If header evaluation when? bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 59] New: failed LOCK response body bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 58] New: MOVE status 403 description bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 57] New: incorrect section reference bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 56] New: 423 Locked in Multistatus for PROPPATCH? bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 55] New: Multistatus format (empty) bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 54] New: Locks vs multiple bindings bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 53] New: DAV:responsedescription content model bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 52] New: "mandatory" properties bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 51] New: Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY" bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 50] New: Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253 bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 49] New: propfind XML description incorrect bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 48] New: XML extensibility description bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 47] New: 3xx in multistatus bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 46] New: URLs in Multistatus bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 45] New: DAV request header bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 44] New: OPTIONS * bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 43] New: "ill-formed" XML bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 42] New: Consider deprecating text/xml for XML request/response bodies bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 41] New: Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13 bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 40] New: Definition of "null resource" gone bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 39] New: Syntax of property names in text content bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 38] New: RFC2396bis update bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 37] New: Sentence lost in introduction bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 36] New: Appendix numbering bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 35] New: RFC2606 compliance bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 34] New: property "URI" bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 33] Terminology in properties section bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 33] New: Terminology in properties section bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 32] New: DAV:displayname handling bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 30] New: incorrect XML in example bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 29] New: refreshing locks bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 28] New: MOVE vs live properties bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 27] New: COPY vs live properties bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 26] New: URL syntax in PROPFIND bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 25] New: lock to unmapped URL bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 24] New: lost-update vs collections bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 23] New: lock discovery vs shared locks bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 22] New: attributes on properties bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 21] XML element definitions bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 20] lock token example bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 17] XML NS terminology bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names? bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253 bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 13] new ETag requirements bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent" bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 7] Example for PROPFIND/allprop missing bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu
• [Bug 6] Collection Lock vs MOVE with Overwrite bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu

Wednesday, 24 November 2004

• [Bug 5] Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu

Monday, 22 November 2004

• Re: Comment on UNBIND language in BIND specification Julian Reschke

Thursday, 18 November 2004

• Re: ответ на запрос ����������

Tuesday, 16 November 2004

• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Jim Whitehead
• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Joe Hildebrand

Monday, 15 November 2004

• Re: Review of XCAP -- extensions to HTTP for configuration access Ted Hardie
• Review of XCAP -- extensions to HTTP for configuration access Lisa Dusseault

Saturday, 13 November 2004

• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Julian Reschke
• REDIRECT issue "13_allprop": allprop behaviour Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke

Friday, 12 November 2004

• Re: Comment on UNBIND language in BIND specification Julian Reschke
• RE: Comment on UNBIND language in BIND specification Jim Whitehead
• Re: Comment on UNBIND language in BIND specification Julian Reschke
• Re: Comment on UNBIND language in BIND specification Julian Reschke
• Property size limitations Jim Luther
• Comment on UNBIND language in BIND specification Jim Whitehead

Saturday, 6 November 2004

• BIND: references to RFC2396 Julian Reschke

Friday, 5 November 2004

• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Julian Reschke

Monday, 1 November 2004

• comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt, was: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 27 October 2004

• Join Teen Movie Zone - you'll see hardcore teens get f...! 18 porn prositute

Tuesday, 26 October 2004

• Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Brian Korver
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org

Monday, 25 October 2004

• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Lisa Dusseault
• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Eric Hanson

Saturday, 23 October 2004

• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Julian Reschke
• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Geoffrey M Clemm

Friday, 22 October 2004

• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Lisa Dusseault

Thursday, 21 October 2004

• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-10.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Lisa Dusseault
• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: WebDAV at IETF 61 Julian Reschke
• WebDAV at IETF 61 Joe Hildebrand

Tuesday, 19 October 2004

• Re: resolving REDIRECT issue lc-58-update Julian Reschke

Saturday, 16 October 2004

• WebDAV server for IETF Lisa Dusseault

Friday, 15 October 2004

• Re: BIND issue "binding properties", was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Geoffrey M Clemm
• Re: BIND issue "binding properties", was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Jason Crawford
• BIND issue "locking", was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke
• BIND issue "binding properties", was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Lisa Dusseault
• BIND issue permissions, was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke
• BIND issue COPY/MOVE on "same" resouece, was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Lisa Dusseault
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Lisa Dusseault
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Lisa Dusseault
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt Julian Reschke

Saturday, 9 October 2004

• resolving REDIRECT issue lc-58-update Julian Reschke

Friday, 8 October 2004

• resolving REDIRECT issue 12.1-property-name Julian Reschke
• resolving REDIRECT issue 3-terminology-redirectref Julian Reschke

Thursday, 7 October 2004

• Re: looking for feedback on REDIRECT issue lc-57-noautoupdate Julian Reschke

Wednesday, 6 October 2004

• Re: looking for feedback on REDIRECT issue lc-57-noautoupdate Lisa Dusseault
• I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-09.txt Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
• new REDIRECT draft submitted (-09) Julian Reschke
• looking for feedback on REDIRECT issue lc-57-noautoupdate Julian Reschke
• resolving REDIRECT issue lc-33-forwarding Julian Reschke
• resolving REDIRECT issue lc-48-s6 Julian Reschke
• resolving REDIRECT issue lc-36-server Julian Reschke

Friday, 1 October 2004

• Comments on draft-hildebrand-webdav-notify-00 Julian Reschke

Last message date: Tuesday, 28 December 2004 20:15:12 UTC