Saturday, 31 December 2005
- Re: draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt: DAV:quota-not-exceeded
- [Bug 213] Spec inconsistent on PROPFIND/Depth:infinity
- [Bug 212] Spec inconsistent on PROPFIND/Depth:infinity
- [Bug 212] New: Spec inconsistent on PROPFIND/Depth:infinity
- [Bug 213] New: Spec inconsistent on PROPFIND/Depth:infinity
- [Bug 202] Move description of lock-null resources into appendix
- [Bug 211] New: Inconsistencies about Destination header
- [Bug 80] Specify idempotence and safeness for all new methods
- [Bug 181] error element
- [Bug 80] Specify idempotence and safeness for all new methods
- Re: [Bug 124] REPORT_OTHER_RESOURCE_LOCKED
- [Bug 124] REPORT_OTHER_RESOURCE_LOCKED
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 147] CLARIFY_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER_APPLICATION
- [Bug 121] OVERWRITE_DELETE_ERROR_STATUS
- Re: draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt: DAV:quota-not-exceeded
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping various information in properties
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Question on GULP - properties defined as lockable, and content of a resource
- Re-using 414 status codes (related to Bug 31)
- Re: New Security considerations
- [Bug 181] error element
- Re: [Bug 179] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 179] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 184] Clarifications requested for section 19.8 on hosting malicious content
- [Bug 176] Etag requirements (unchanged body for resource)
- [Bug 177] "PROPFIND status codes" section
- [Bug 176] Etag requirements (unchanged body for resource)
- [Bug 177] "PROPFIND status codes" section
- [Bug 179] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 181] error element
Friday, 30 December 2005
- [Bug 184] Clarifications requested for section 19.8 on hosting malicious content
- New Security considerations (was: Re: [Bug 184] )
- [Bug 184] Section 19.8 added with no open issue nor WG consensus
- [Bug 208] spec contradictory in ETag requirements
- [Bug 184] Section 19.8 added with no open issue nor WG consensus
- [Bug 207] Compliance class descriptions for "1" and "2"
- [Bug 208] spec contradictory in ETag requirements
- [Bug 209] invalid etag in example
- [Bug 210] incorrect statement on PROPPATCH and property recurrence
- [Bug 206] broken RFC2616 references for some DAV:get* properties
- Re: Question on GULP - resources added to locked collection
- Re: Question on GULP - properties defined as lockable, and content of a resource
Thursday, 29 December 2005
- Re: Question on GULP - resources added to locked collection
- Question on GULP - properties defined as lockable, and content of a resource
- Re: Question on GULP - resources added to locked collection
- Question on GULP - resources added to locked collection
Wednesday, 28 December 2005
- Re: Comments in XML-valued dead properties
- [Bug 206] broken RFC2616 references for some DAV:get* properties
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- [Bug 118] WHEN_TO_MULTISTATUS_FOR_DELETE_2
- [Bug 107] Status 102 present; but status-uri response header removed
- [Bug 104] Confusing new sentence in intro of COPY
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 94] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- Comments in XML-valued dead properties
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 86] DAV header definitions should use RFC3864 templates
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping various information in properties
- [Bug 118] WHEN_TO_MULTISTATUS_FOR_DELETE_2
- [Bug 104] Confusing new sentence in intro of COPY
- Feedback on Bug 18
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- [Bug 208] spec contradictory in ETag requirements
- [Bug 206] broken RFC2616 references for some DAV:get* properties
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 181] error element
Tuesday, 27 December 2005
- [Bug 142] URL_ENCODING_ISSUES
- [Bug 141] UNLOCK_WITHOUT_GOOD_TOKEN
- [Bug 138] UNLOCK_WHAT_URL
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping various information in properties
- [Bug 80] Specify idempotence and safeness for all new methods
- [Bug 80] Specify idempotence and safeness for all new methods
- [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- Re: [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 193] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCK
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- Re: [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 144] IF_HEADER_CHECKS_AFTER_OTHER_CHECKS
- [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 143] LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 113] IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 62] href format
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 52] "mandatory" properties
Saturday, 24 December 2005
Friday, 23 December 2005
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Forms-Based Authentication in DAV - Explore
- Forms-Based Authentication in DAV - Explore
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
Thursday, 22 December 2005
- [Bug 181] error element
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Status of Bugzilla Bug 10, Round-tripping various information in properties
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Bindings and permissions
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Schedule for finishing
Wednesday, 21 December 2005
- [Bug 202] Move description of lock-null resources into appendix
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 193] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCK
- [Bug 193] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCK
- [Bug 193] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCK
- [Bug 194] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COLLECTIONS
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 195] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COPYMOVE
- [Bug 195] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COPYMOVE
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- [Bug 195] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COPYMOVE
- [Bug 196] LOCK_ISSUES_ERROR_CODES
- [Bug 196] LOCK_ISSUES_ERROR_CODES
- [Bug 196] LOCK_ISSUES_ERROR_CODES
- [Bug 197] LOCK_ISSUES_IF_HEADER
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- [Bug 197] LOCK_ISSUES_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 197] LOCK_ISSUES_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 202] Move description of lock-null resources into appendix
- [Bug 198] LOCK_ISSUES_SHARED_LOCKS
- [Bug 202] Move description of lock-null resources into appendix
- [Bug 202] Move description of lock-null resources into appendix
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
Tuesday, 20 December 2005
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 86] DAV header definitions should use RFC3864 templates
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Document Action: 'Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Redirect Reference Resources' to Experimental RFC
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: BIND, was: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: BIND, was: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: BIND, was: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- RE: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
Monday, 19 December 2005
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis
- Re: BIND, was: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
Sunday, 18 December 2005
- [Bug 187] Changes section organization
- [Bug 185] Missing interpunction in "previous authors" subsection
- [Bug 182] whitespace in lock token in example
- [Bug 180] Typo in 13.18, enhance reference
- [Bug 168] Revert to original reference style
- [Bug 88] typo in list
- [Bug 68] Reference to XML spec
- [Bug 63] typo in 13.16 "name" line
- [Bug 57] incorrect section reference
- [Bug 30] incorrect XML in example
- Re: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 181] error element
- [Bug 181] error element
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 210] New: incorrect statement on PROPPATCH and property recurrence
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
Saturday, 17 December 2005
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- [Bug 209] New: invalid etag in example
- [Bug 208] New: spec contradictory in ETag requirements
- [Bug 147] CLARIFY_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER_APPLICATION
- [Bug 147] CLARIFY_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER_APPLICATION
- [Bug 147] CLARIFY_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER_APPLICATION
- Re: BIND, was: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 121] OVERWRITE_DELETE_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 121] OVERWRITE_DELETE_ERROR_STATUS
- BIND, was: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Bindings and permissions
- Bindings and permissions
Friday, 16 December 2005
- Re: Question for implementors: definition of Lock with bindings
- Question for implementors: definition of Lock with bindings
- [Bug 154] ADD_DEPTH_ZERO_DELETE
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 154] ADD_DEPTH_ZERO_DELETE
- [Bug 154] ADD_DEPTH_ZERO_DELETE
- [Bug 156] HOW_ARE_TRAILING_SLASHES_USED
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 134] PROPFIND_INFINITY
- [Bug 114] PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS
- [Bug 123] MULTISTATUS_FROM_MKCOL
- [Bug 121] OVERWRITE_DELETE_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 118] WHEN_TO_MULTISTATUS_FOR_DELETE_2
- [Bug 121] OVERWRITE_DELETE_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 118] WHEN_TO_MULTISTATUS_FOR_DELETE_2
- [Bug 117] WHEN_TO_MULTISTATUS_FOR_DELETE_1
- [Bug 115] INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS
- [Bug 115] INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS
- [Bug 115] INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
Thursday, 15 December 2005
- I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-09.txt
- [Bug 105] COPY for Collection Resources vs infinite loops
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 207] New: Compliance class descriptions for "1" and "2"
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Concern about bugzilla SPAM
- Re: [Bug 171] If header grammar
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Was ... Re: [Bug 161] EVALUATE_ALL_OF_IF_HEADER
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
Wednesday, 14 December 2005
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
Tuesday, 13 December 2005
Wednesday, 14 December 2005
- [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 166] XML_GUIDELINES_CONFORMANCE
- [Bug 79] PUT for collections rationale
- [Bug 127] PUT_ON_COLLECTION
- [Bug 132] DEPTH_LOCK_AND_IF
- [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 125] COPY_INTO_YOURSELF_CLARIFY
- [Bug 113] IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 157] REMOVE_ETAG_SUPPORT_FOR_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 104] Confusing new sentence in intro of COPY
- [Bug 139] MUST_AN_IF_HEADER_CHECK_THE_ROOT_OF_URL
- [Bug 147] CLARIFY_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER_APPLICATION
- [Bug 144] IF_HEADER_CHECKS_AFTER_OTHER_CHECKS
- [Bug 144] IF_HEADER_CHECKS_AFTER_OTHER_CHECKS
- [Bug 159] ORDER_OF_HEADER_EVALUATION
- [Bug 147] CLARIFY_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER_APPLICATION
- [Bug 143] LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 163] REMOVE_NOT_SUPPORT_FROM_IF_HEADERS
- [Bug 162] REMOVE_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 161] EVALUATE_ALL_OF_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 144] IF_HEADER_CHECKS_AFTER_OTHER_CHECKS
- [Bug 144] IF_HEADER_CHECKS_AFTER_OTHER_CHECKS
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- Re: Review of RFC2518bis pre-draft
- Re: New compliance class - was Re: [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- Re: New compliance class - was Re: [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- Re: Concern about bugzilla SPAM
- Re: Concern about bugzilla SPAM
- Re: Tomorrows call
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: New compliance class - was Re: [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- Re: Concern about bugzilla SPAM
- Re: New compliance class - was Re: [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: Tomorrows call
- Re: Concern about bugzilla SPAM
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Tomorrows call
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: Concern about bugzilla SPAM
- Re: [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
Tuesday, 13 December 2005
- Re: [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Concern about bugzilla SPAM
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- New compliance class - was Re: [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: unsubscribe s.y.crompton@dl.ac.uk
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Do server store arbitrary content
- Re: unsubscribe s.y.crompton@dl.ac.uk
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 181] error element
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
Monday, 12 December 2005
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Fwd: RFC 4316 on Datatypes for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Properties]
- Re: Review of RFC2518bis pre-draft
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 205] new MUST level requirement for LOCK on unmapped URLs
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 42] Consider deprecating text/xml for XML request/response bodies
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 145] LOCKDISCOVERY_ON_UNLOCKED_RESOURCE
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 113] IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 143] LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 62] href format
- [Bug 205] new MUST level requirement for LOCK on unmapped URLs
- [Bug 152] SHOULD_A_SERVER_DETERMINE_MIMETYPE_OF_CONTENT
- [Bug 152] SHOULD_A_SERVER_DETERMINE_MIMETYPE_OF_CONTENT
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 42] Consider deprecating text/xml for XML request/response bodies
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- Re: Review of RFC2518bis pre-draft
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
Sunday, 11 December 2005
- [Bug 206] New: broken RFC2616 references for some DAV:get* properties
- Re: [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
Saturday, 10 December 2005
- [Bug 72] Review references section
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 110] COMPLIANCE_RESOURCE
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 169] Date header required?
- [Bug 119] DATE_FORMAT_GETLASTMODIFIED
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 145] LOCKDISCOVERY_ON_UNLOCKED_RESOURCE
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 113] IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 113] IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 143] LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 62] href format
- Re: Review of RFC2518bis pre-draft
- [Bug 205] New: new MUST level requirement for LOCK on unmapped URLs
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 42] Consider deprecating text/xml for XML request/response bodies
- [Bug 145] LOCKDISCOVERY_ON_UNLOCKED_RESOURCE
- [Bug 148] SECTION_12_4_MENTIONS_HREF_ELEMENT
- [Bug 166] XML_GUIDELINES_CONFORMANCE
- [Bug 181] error element
- [Bug 170] no mention of 424 in section 8.3.2
- [Bug 112] MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 165] DAV_ERROR_SUPPORT
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 135] RESOURCETYPE_EXTENSION
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 164] HOW_DOES_WEBDAV_SUPPORT_VARIANTS
- [Bug 137] OPTIONS_RESPONSE_VARIES_FOR_RESOURCES
- [Bug 143] LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 153] CAN_HREF_BE_RELATIVE
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 126] EXTEND_UNDEFINED
- [Bug 110] COMPLIANCE_RESOURCE
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 110] COMPLIANCE_RESOURCE
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 104] Confusing new sentence in intro of COPY
- [Bug 101] Extensibility for dav:owner
- [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 150] SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 60] If header evaluation when?
- [Bug 140] UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 169] Date header required?
- [Bug 149] NEW_MULTIPUT_METHOD
- [Bug 129] LOCK_BODY_SHOULD_BE_MUST
- [Bug 116] OVERWRITE_DELETE_ALL_TOO_STRONG
- [Bug 113] IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 111] DEFINE_PRINCIPAL
- [Bug 119] DATE_FORMAT_GETLASTMODIFIED
- [Bug 192] LOCK_ISSUES_LOCK_URI_TYPE
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping various information in properties
- [Bug 146] PROP_ROUNDTRIP
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping various information in properties
- [Bug 191] LOCK_ISSUES_ACCESS_RIGHTS
- [Bug 190] HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup
- [Bug 102] lock tokens in examples
- [Bug 87] broken XML source of spec
- [Bug 183] Outdated references
- [Bug 186] opaquelocktoken appendix
- [Bug 186] opaquelocktoken appendix
- [Bug 189] "RFC2518bis" in spec text
- [Bug 199] Front matter editorial nits
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 203] DAV:lockdiscovery in multistatus (8.11.8)
- [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL
- [Bug 204] DAV:creationdate vs client sychronization
- [Bug 62] href format
- [Bug 60] If header evaluation when?
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 58] MOVE status 403 description
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
Friday, 9 December 2005
- [Bug 52] "mandatory" properties
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 51] Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 42] Consider deprecating text/xml for XML request/response bodies
- [Bug 32] DAV:displayname handling
- Re: Review of RFC2518bis pre-draft
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- [Bug 156] HOW_ARE_TRAILING_SLASHES_USED
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- Review of RFC2518bis pre-draft
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 204] New: DAV:creationdate vs client sychronization
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 107] Status 102 present; but status-uri response header removed
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 6] Collection Lock vs MOVE with Overwrite
- [Bug 93] Write Locks and Collections vs MOVE
- [Bug 6] Collection Lock vs MOVE with Overwrite
- [Bug 203] New: DAV:lockdiscovery in multistatus (8.11.8)
- Re: [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- Re: [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 202] Move description of lock-null resources into appendix
- [Bug 202] New: Move description of lock-null resources into appendix
- Re: [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- Implementations of draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- Re: [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
Thursday, 8 December 2005
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Bug 120] DEEP_LOCK_ERROR_STATUS
- Re: OT but nice productivity hack: Yubnub to find RFCs, I-Ds and WGs
- Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- RE: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: Client comments?
- Re: [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt: DAV:quota-not-exceeded
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
Wednesday, 7 December 2005
- OT but nice productivity hack: Yubnub to find RFCs, I-Ds and WGs
- [Bug 120] DEEP_LOCK_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 140] UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 140] UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 143] LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 136] LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY
- [Bug 132] DEPTH_LOCK_AND_IF
- [Bug 132] DEPTH_LOCK_AND_IF
- [Bug 124] REPORT_OTHER_RESOURCE_LOCKED
- [Bug 124] REPORT_OTHER_RESOURCE_LOCKED
- [Bug 120] DEEP_LOCK_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 120] DEEP_LOCK_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 58] MOVE status 403 description
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- Client comments? (was: [Bug 10] Round-tripping [...])
- [Bug 107] Status 102 present; but status-uri response header removed
- [Bug 107] Status 102 present; but status-uri response header removed
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 105] COPY for Collection Resources vs infinite loops
- [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- Re: GULP (Lock Semantics), was: Agenda for 12/6 telecon
- GULP (Lock Semantics), was: Agenda for 12/6 telecon
Tuesday, 6 December 2005
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
- Agenda for 12/6 telecon
- [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- Re: [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL
- [Bug 186] opaquelocktoken appendix
- [Bug 176] Etag requirements (unchanged body for resource)
- [Bug 186] opaquelocktoken appendix
- [Bug 143] LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 136] LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY
- [Bug 140] UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 136] LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY
- Re: [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL
Monday, 5 December 2005
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- Re: Proposal for response URLs in Multi-Status: always based on Request-URI
- Re: [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- Re: [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL
- Re: Proposal for response URLs in Multi-Status: always based on Request-URI
Sunday, 4 December 2005
- Re: Proposal for response URLs in Multi-Status: always based on Request-URI
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- Re: [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- Proposal for response URLs in Multi-Status: always based on Request-URI
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- Re: [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL
- Re: [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
Saturday, 3 December 2005
Friday, 2 December 2005
Saturday, 3 December 2005
- Re: [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
Friday, 2 December 2005
- [Bug 22] attributes on properties
- [Bug 174] Terminology in 4.4: "namespace name in scope"
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL
- Re: [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 104] Confusing new sentence in intro of COPY
- [Bug 99] Risks Connected with Lock Tokens
- [Bug 80] Specify idempotence and safeness for all new methods
- [Bug 79] PUT for collections rationale
- [Bug 59] failed LOCK response body
- [Bug 56] 423 Locked in Multistatus for PROPPATCH?
- [Bug 55] Multistatus format (empty)
- [Bug 52] "mandatory" properties
- [Bug 189] "RFC2518bis" in spec text
- [Bug 189] "RFC2518bis" in spec text
- [Bug 189] "RFC2518bis" in spec text
- [Bug 175] Sectiion 8.1.3 unneeded
- [Bug 175] Sectiion 8.1.3 unneeded
- [Bug 178] Multistatus for DELETE
- [Bug 128] LEVEL_OR_CLASS
- [Bug 103] Start of introduction for DELETE confusing
- [Bug 91] chapter name for lock token uri schemes
- [Bug 128] LEVEL_OR_CLASS
- [Bug 103] Start of introduction for DELETE confusing
- [Bug 174] Terminology in 4.4: "namespace name in scope"
- [Bug 90] broken RFC2277 reference
- [Bug 174] Terminology in 4.4: "namespace name in scope"
- [Bug 22] attributes on properties
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 94] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- [Bug 156] HOW_ARE_TRAILING_SLASHES_USED
- [Bug 149] NEW_MULTIPUT_METHOD
- agenda for 12/2 telecon
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- [Bug 72] Review references section
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 35] RFC2606 compliance
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 51] Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
Thursday, 1 December 2005
- Re: [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- Re: [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- Re: [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- Re: [Bug 171] If header grammar
Wednesday, 30 November 2005
- [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- [Bug 40] Definition of "null resource" gone
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-webdav-mount-03.txt]
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- [Bug 7] Example for PROPFIND/allprop missing
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- [Bug 186] opaquelocktoken appendix
- [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 174] Terminology in 4.4: "namespace name in scope"
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 94] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs
- [Bug 94] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs
- [Bug 93] Write Locks and Collections vs MOVE
- [Bug 93] Write Locks and Collections vs MOVE
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 51] Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
- [Bug 7] Example for PROPFIND/allprop missing
- [Bug 7] Example for PROPFIND/allprop missing
- [Bug 173] Info about <location> inside multistatus lost
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
Tuesday, 29 November 2005
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- Re: Agenda for 11/30 telecon
- Agenda for 11/30 telecon
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
Monday, 28 November 2005
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
Sunday, 27 November 2005
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- [Bug 99] Risks Connected with Lock Tokens
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 201] New: LWS allowed in Coded-URL
Saturday, 26 November 2005
- Re: [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- [Bug 188] PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- Proposed changes
- [Bug 171] If header grammar
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 200] New: remove "bis" compliance class
- [Bug 199] New: Front matter editorial nits
- Re: [Bug 184] New: Section 19.8 added with no open issue nor WG consensus
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- [Bug 51] Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
- [Bug 93] Write Locks and Collections vs MOVE
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 67] non-ASCII characters
- [Bug 38] RFC2396bis update
- [Bug 38] RFC2396bis update
- [Bug 36] Appendix numbering
- [Bug 34] property "URI"
- [Bug 29] refreshing locks
- [Bug 20] lock token example
- [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
Friday, 25 November 2005
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 60] If header evaluation when?
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- [Bug 62] href format
- [Bug 40] Definition of "null resource" gone
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- Re: Issues for 11/25 Conference Call (notes)
- [Bug 86] DAV header definitions should use RFC3864 templates
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 49] propfind XML description incorrect
- [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 22] attributes on properties
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- [Bug 62] href format
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 40] Definition of "null resource" gone
- [Bug 27] COPY vs live properties
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- [Bug 27] COPY vs live properties
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 49] propfind XML description incorrect
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 86] DAV header definitions should use RFC3864 templates
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 40] Definition of "null resource" gone
- [Bug 27] COPY vs live properties
- Issues for 11/24 Conference Call
Thursday, 24 November 2005
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- Re: [Bug 190] New: HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup
- Re: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- Re: [Bug 190] New: HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup
- Re: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- Re: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- Re: [Bug 177] New: "PROPFIND status codes" section
- Re: Twice Weekly Conference Call
- Re: [Bug 177] New: "PROPFIND status codes" section
- Re: [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- Re: HTTP Upload
- Re: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- Re: [Bug 177] New: "PROPFIND status codes" section
- Re: [Bug 181] New: error element
- HTTP Upload
- Re: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- Re: [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- Re: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Twice Weekly Conference Call
- ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...
- More mainly editorial changes
- [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- [Bug 45] DAV request header
- [Bug 43] "ill-formed" XML
- [Bug 39] Syntax of property names in text content
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
Wednesday, 23 November 2005
- Re: Question on bug 15
- Notes on call from today ...
- Re: Question on bug 15
- Re: Question on bug 15
- Re: Question on bug 15
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 45] DAV request header
- [Bug 45] DAV request header
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 43] "ill-formed" XML
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- Re: Question on bug 15
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- Question on bug 15
- [Bug 39] Syntax of property names in text content
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- Re: [Bug 184] New: Section 19.8 added with no open issue nor WG consensus
Tuesday, 22 November 2005
- [Bug 192] LOCK_ISSUES_LOCK_URI_TYPE
- [Bug 195] LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COPYMOVE
- Re: Fwd: [Bug 190] New: HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup
Monday, 21 November 2005
- Fwd: [Bug 190] New: HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup
- Re: Fixes for editorial issues
- Re: [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- Re: [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- Re: Fixes for editorial issues
- [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- [Bug 30] incorrect XML in example
- [Bug 57] incorrect section reference
- [Bug 63] typo in 13.16 "name" line
- [Bug 68] Reference to XML spec
- [Bug 88] typo in list
- [Bug 88] typo in list
- [Bug 89] whitespace introduced into hyphenated words
- [Bug 168] Revert to original reference style
- [Bug 180] Typo in 13.18, enhance reference
- [Bug 182] whitespace in lock token in example
- [Bug 187] Changes section organization
- [Bug 185] Missing interpunction in "previous authors" subsection
- Re: Fixes for editorial issues
- Re: Fixes for editorial issues
- [Bug 122] LOCK_ISSUES
- [Bug 198] New: LOCK_ISSUES_SHARED_LOCKS
- [Bug 197] New: LOCK_ISSUES_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 196] New: LOCK_ISSUES_ERROR_CODES
- [Bug 195] New: LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COPYMOVE
- [Bug 194] New: LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCKS_AND_COLLECTIONS
- [Bug 193] New: LOCK_ISSUES_WRITE_LOCK
- [Bug 192] New: LOCK_ISSUES_LOCK_URI_TYPE
- [Bug 191] New: LOCK_ISSUES_ACCESS_RIGHTS
- Re: [Bug 190] New: HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup
- [Bug 190] New: HTTP examples using RFC2629 markup
- [Bug 189] New: "RFC2518bis" in spec text
- Fixes for editorial issues
- [Bug 66] references style
- [Bug 168] Revert to original reference style
Sunday, 20 November 2005
- [Bug 188] New: PROPFIND include-dead-props
- [Bug 187] New: Changes section organization
- [Bug 186] New: opaquelocktoken appendix
- [Bug 185] New: Missing interpunction in "previous authors" subsection
- [Bug 184] New: Section 19.8 added with no open issue nor WG consensus
- [Bug 183] New: Outdated references
- [Bug 182] New: whitespace in lock token in example
- [Bug 181] New: error element
- [Bug 180] New: Typo in 13.18, enhance reference
- [Bug 177] "PROPFIND status codes" section
- [Bug 179] New: DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 178] New: Multistatus for DELETE
- [Bug 177] New: "PROPFIND status codes" section
- [Bug 176] New: Etag requirements (unchanged body for resource)
- [Bug 175] New: Sectiion 8.1.3 unneeded
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 174] New: Terminology in 4.4: "namespace name in scope"
- [Bug 173] New: Info about <location> inside multistatus lost
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
Saturday, 19 November 2005
- Re: BugZilla mail flood
- Re: BugZilla mail flood
- BugZilla mail flood
- [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- [Bug 170] no mention of 424 in section 8.3.2
- [Bug 169] Date header required?
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 167] XML_ENTITY_DOS
- [Bug 165] DAV_ERROR_SUPPORT
- [Bug 163] REMOVE_NOT_SUPPORT_FROM_IF_HEADERS
- [Bug 162] REMOVE_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- [Bug 158] SHOULD_WE_SUPPORT_IRIS_AND_CHARMOD
- [Bug 157] REMOVE_ETAG_SUPPORT_FOR_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 155] INTEROPERABILITY_OF_102PROCESSING_STATUS_DEMONSTRATED
- [Bug 107] Status 102 present; but status-uri response header removed
- [Bug 154] ADD_DEPTH_ZERO_DELETE
- [Bug 153] CAN_HREF_BE_RELATIVE
- [Bug 151] HOW_DO_WE_ENCODE_FILENAMES_AS_URLS
- [Bug 142] URL_ENCODING_ISSUES
- [Bug 150] SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED
- [Bug 149] NEW_MULTIPUT_METHOD
- [Bug 148] SECTION_12_4_MENTIONS_HREF_ELEMENT
- [Bug 145] LOCKDISCOVERY_ON_UNLOCKED_RESOURCE
- [Bug 142] URL_ENCODING_ISSUES
- [Bug 140] UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 137] OPTIONS_RESPONSE_VARIES_FOR_RESOURCES
- [Bug 135] RESOURCETYPE_EXTENSION
- [Bug 134] PROPFIND_INFINITY
- [Bug 131] DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 130] IF_AND_AUTH
- [Bug 129] LOCK_BODY_SHOULD_BE_MUST
- [Bug 120] DEEP_LOCK_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 119] DATE_FORMAT_GETLASTMODIFIED
- [Bug 116] OVERWRITE_DELETE_ALL_TOO_STRONG
- [Bug 113] IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 111] DEFINE_PRINCIPAL
- [Bug 107] Status 102 present; but status-uri response header removed
- [Bug 106] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 105] COPY for Collection Resources vs infinite loops
- [Bug 104] Confusing new sentence in intro of COPY
- [Bug 103] Start of introduction for DELETE confusing
- [Bug 102] lock tokens in examples
- [Bug 101] Extensibility for dav:owner
- [Bug 100] "Notes on HTTP Client Compatibility" useful?
- [Bug 99] Risks Connected with Lock Tokens
- [Bug 98] new error code descriptions, continued
- [Bug 97] new error code descriptions
- [Bug 96] combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 95] possible LOCK response codes
- [Bug 94] COPY and the Overwrite Header vs
- [Bug 93] Write Locks and Collections vs MOVE
- [Bug 92] lock owner description
- [Bug 91] chapter name for lock token uri schemes
- [Bug 90] broken RFC2277 reference
- [Bug 89] whitespace introduced into hyphenated words
- [Bug 88] typo in list
- [Bug 87] broken XML source of spec
- [Bug 86] DAV header definitions should use RFC3864 templates
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 80] Specify idempotence and safeness for all new methods
- [Bug 79] PUT for collections rationale
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- [Bug 72] Review references section
- [Bug 68] Reference to XML spec
- [Bug 67] non-ASCII characters
- [Bug 66] references style
- [Bug 63] typo in 13.16 "name" line
- [Bug 62] href format
- [Bug 60] If header evaluation when?
- [Bug 59] failed LOCK response body
- [Bug 58] MOVE status 403 description
- [Bug 57] incorrect section reference
- [Bug 56] 423 Locked in Multistatus for PROPPATCH?
- [Bug 55] Multistatus format (empty)
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 52] "mandatory" properties
- [Bug 51] Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 49] propfind XML description incorrect
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 45] DAV request header
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 43] "ill-formed" XML
- [Bug 42] Consider deprecating text/xml for XML request/response bodies
- [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- [Bug 40] Definition of "null resource" gone
- [Bug 38] RFC2396bis update
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- [Bug 35] RFC2606 compliance
- [Bug 32] DAV:displayname handling
- [Bug 30] incorrect XML in example
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 27] COPY vs live properties
- [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 22] attributes on properties
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 7] Example for PROPFIND/allprop missing
- [Bug 6] Collection Lock vs MOVE with Overwrite
Friday, 18 November 2005
- Issues to address this coming week
- Timeline for completion
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- RE: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- RE: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- RE: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- RE: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- RE: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
Thursday, 17 November 2005
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- RE: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
Wednesday, 16 November 2005
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-08.txt
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: Fwd: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Fwd: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- Re: URI spec RFC2396 obsoleted by RFC3986
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Draft -08 RFC2518bis
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- URI spec RFC2396 obsoleted by RFC3986
- Re: [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 102] lock tokens in examples
- Re: [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- [Bug 36] Appendix numbering
- [Bug 34] property "URI"
- [Bug 30] incorrect XML in example
Tuesday, 15 November 2005
- [Bug 29] refreshing locks
- [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
- [Bug 20] lock token example
- [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
Friday, 11 November 2005
Monday, 14 November 2005
Sunday, 13 November 2005
Tuesday, 8 November 2005
Sunday, 6 November 2005
- Re: [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
Thursday, 3 November 2005
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- Re: XML InfoSet and property value preservation
- XML InfoSet and property value preservation
Wednesday, 2 November 2005
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
Tuesday, 1 November 2005
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
Monday, 31 October 2005
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- FW: [Inquiry #83038] Publication requested for draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-13
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
Sunday, 30 October 2005
- Re: [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- Redirect draft status
- Re: [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
Saturday, 29 October 2005
- Bridge for this week (and hopefully other weeks too)
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
Friday, 28 October 2005
- [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- This Document Defines Two Namespaces (was Re: Combined set of issues ...)
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- URI scheme removal/permanence
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
Thursday, 27 October 2005
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: on our bug tracking (and closing) process
- Re: [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- on our bug tracking (and closing) process
- [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
- Re: [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
- [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
- Re: [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- Re: [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
Tuesday, 25 October 2005
- weekly bug phone call - moved to Thursday this week by popular request
- [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
Monday, 24 October 2005
- [Bug 172] New: Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
Sunday, 23 October 2005
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 151] HOW_DO_WE_ENCODE_FILENAMES_AS_URLS
- [Bug 154] ADD_DEPTH_ZERO_DELETE
- [Bug 171] New: If header grammar
- If header list syntax, Re: Test cases for "If" header checks
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
Saturday, 22 October 2005
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Test cases for "If" header checks
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Combined set of issues around lock tokens, examples, schemes
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
Friday, 21 October 2005
- Conference bridge for weekly bug phone call
- [Bug 170] New: no mention of 424 in section 8.3.2
- Re: limit user per ip in mod_dav
- limit user per ip in mod_dav
Thursday, 20 October 2005
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Thursday, 20 October 2005
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-webdav-mount-02.txt]
- Re: Problem implementing simple WebDAV Server
- Problem implementing simple WebDAV Server
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
Wednesday, 19 October 2005
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
- Re: new WebDAV python library
- Re: [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
- [Bug 169] New: Date header required?
- Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- Re: Phone call this Friday.
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
- Phone call this Friday.
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
Tuesday, 18 October 2005
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- Re: [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- Re: [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
Monday, 17 October 2005
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- RFC2445bis: "424 Failed Dependency" missing in section "8.3.1 Status Codes for use with 207 (Multi-Status)"
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
- Re: new stuff in draft edits
Sunday, 16 October 2005
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- new stuff in draft edits
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: [Bug 20] lock token example
- Re: [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- Re: [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- Re: [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Re: [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- Re: Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Editing rfc2518bis.xml
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
Saturday, 15 October 2005
- [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- [Bug 20] lock token example
- [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- Re: [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- [Bug 168] New: Revert to original reference style
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
Friday, 14 October 2005
Thursday, 13 October 2005
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-13.txt
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-13.txt
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- [Bug 29] refreshing locks
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- [Bug 36] Appendix numbering
- [Bug 36] Appendix numbering
- [Bug 34] property "URI"
- [Bug 34] property "URI"
- [Bug 34] property "URI"
- [Bug 32] DAV:displayname handling
- [Bug 30] incorrect XML in example
- [Bug 30] incorrect XML in example
- [Bug 29] refreshing locks
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 20] lock token example
- [Bug 22] attributes on properties
- [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 7] Example for PROPFIND/allprop missing
- [Bug 6] Collection Lock vs MOVE with Overwrite
- [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 167] New: XML_ENTITY_DOS
- [Bug 166] New: XML_GUIDELINES_CONFORMANCE
- [Bug 165] New: DAV_ERROR_SUPPORT
- [Bug 164] New: HOW_DOES_WEBDAV_SUPPORT_VARIANTS
- [Bug 163] New: REMOVE_NOT_SUPPORT_FROM_IF_HEADERS
- [Bug 162] New: REMOVE_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 161] New: EVALUATE_ALL_OF_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 160] New: IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG
- [Bug 159] New: ORDER_OF_HEADER_EVALUATION
- [Bug 158] New: SHOULD_WE_SUPPORT_IRIS_AND_CHARMOD
- [Bug 157] New: REMOVE_ETAG_SUPPORT_FOR_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 156] New: HOW_ARE_TRAILING_SLASHES_USED
- [Bug 155] New: INTEROPERABILITY_OF_102PROCESSING_STATUS_DEMONSTRATED
- [Bug 154] New: ADD_DEPTH_ZERO_DELETE
- [Bug 153] New: CAN_HREF_BE_RELATIVE
- [Bug 152] New: SHOULD_A_SERVER_DETERMINE_MIMETYPE_OF_CONTENT
- [Bug 151] New: HOW_DO_WE_ENCODE_FILENAMES_AS_URLS
- [Bug 150] New: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED
- [Bug 149] New: NEW_MULTIPUT_METHOD
- [Bug 148] New: SECTION_12_4_MENTIONS_HREF_ELEMENT
- [Bug 147] New: CLARIFY_UNTAGGED_IF_HEADER_APPLICATION
- [Bug 146] New: PROP_ROUNDTRIP
- [Bug 145] New: LOCKDISCOVERY_ON_UNLOCKED_RESOURCE
- [Bug 144] New: IF_HEADER_CHECKS_AFTER_OTHER_CHECKS
- [Bug 143] New: LOCK_RENEWAL_SHOULD_NOT_USE_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 142] New: URL_ENCODING_ISSUES
- [Bug 141] New: UNLOCK_WITHOUT_GOOD_TOKEN
- [Bug 140] New: UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER
- [Bug 139] New: MUST_AN_IF_HEADER_CHECK_THE_ROOT_OF_URL
- [Bug 138] New: UNLOCK_WHAT_URL
- [Bug 137] New: OPTIONS_RESPONSE_VARIES_FOR_RESOURCES
- [Bug 136] New: LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY
- [Bug 135] New: RESOURCETYPE_EXTENSION
- [Bug 134] New: PROPFIND_INFINITY
- [Bug 133] New: LOCK_SEMANTICS
- [Bug 132] New: DEPTH_LOCK_AND_IF
- [Bug 131] New: DISPLAYNAME
- [Bug 130] New: IF_AND_AUTH
- [Bug 129] New: LOCK_BODY_SHOULD_BE_MUST
- [Bug 128] New: LEVEL_OR_CLASS
- [Bug 127] New: PUT_ON_COLLECTION
- [Bug 126] New: EXTEND_UNDEFINED
- [Bug 125] New: COPY_INTO_YOURSELF_CLARIFY
- [Bug 124] New: REPORT_OTHER_RESOURCE_LOCKED
- [Bug 123] New: MULTISTATUS_FROM_MKCOL
- [Bug 122] New: LOCK_ISSUES
- [Bug 121] New: OVERWRITE_DELETE_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 120] New: DEEP_LOCK_ERROR_STATUS
- [Bug 119] New: DATE_FORMAT_GETLASTMODIFIED
- [Bug 118] New: WHEN_TO_MULTISTATUS_FOR_DELETE_2
- [Bug 117] New: WHEN_TO_MULTISTATUS_FOR_DELETE_1
- [Bug 116] New: OVERWRITE_DELETE_ALL_TOO_STRONG
- [Bug 115] New: INTEROP_DELETE_AND_MULTISTATUS
- [Bug 114] New: PUT_AND_INTERMEDIATE_COLLECTIONS
- [Bug 113] New: IMPLIED_LWS
- [Bug 112] New: MKCOL_AND_302
- [Bug 111] New: DEFINE_PRINCIPAL
- [Bug 110] New: COMPLIANCE_RESOURCE
- [Bug 109] New: CONSISTENCY
- [Bug 108] PROP_ATTR
- [Bug 108] New: PROP_ATTR
Wednesday, 12 October 2005
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- [Bug 107] New: Status 102 present; but status-uri response header removed
- [Bug 106] New: COPY and the Overwrite Header vs merge behaviour desc added
- [Bug 105] New: COPY for Collection Resources vs infinite loops
- [Bug 104] New: Confusing new sentence in intro of COPY
- [Bug 103] New: Start of introduction for DELETE confusing
- [Bug 102] New: lock tokens in examples
- [Bug 101] New: Extensibility for dav:owner
- [Bug 100] New: "Notes on HTTP Client Compatibility" useful?
- [Bug 99] New: Risks Connected with Lock Tokens
- [Bug 98] New: new error code descriptions, continued
- [Bug 97] New: new error code descriptions
- [Bug 96] New: combining tagged list and untagged list
- [Bug 95] New: possible LOCK response codes
- [Bug 94] New: COPY and the Overwrite Header vs
- [Bug 93] New: Write Locks and Collections vs MOVE
- [Bug 92] New: lock owner description
- [Bug 91] New: chapter name for lock token uri schemes
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
- Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)
Tuesday, 11 October 2005
Monday, 10 October 2005
Friday, 7 October 2005
- Re: ideas for research on wbedav required
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
Thursday, 6 October 2005
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
Wednesday, 5 October 2005
- Re: ideas for research on wbedav required
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: ideas for research on wbedav required
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: ideas for research on wbedav required
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Bugzilla issue 10, was: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Re: ideas for research on wbedav required
- ideas for research on wbedav required
Tuesday, 4 October 2005
- Re: Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- Recurring Thursday Conf call
- Conf call next Wednesday
- Plan to resolve issues in 2518bis
- [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-caldav-08.txt]
Monday, 3 October 2005
- Re: New draft of RFC2518bis
- [Bug 90] New: broken RFC2277 reference
- [Bug 87] New: broken XML source of spec
- [Bug 89] New: whitespace introduced into hyphenated words
- [Bug 88] New: typo in list
- [Bug 85] clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
- [Bug 80] Specify idempotence and safeness for all new methods
- [Bug 79] PUT for collections rationale
- [Bug 73] "Changes" section missing
- [Bug 72] Review references section
- [Bug 41] Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13
- [Bug 40] Definition of "null resource" gone
- [Bug 39] Syntax of property names in text content
- [Bug 38] RFC2396bis update
- [Bug 37] Sentence lost in introduction
- [Bug 36] Appendix numbering
- [Bug 35] RFC2606 compliance
- [Bug 34] property "URI"
- [Bug 33] Terminology in properties section
- [Bug 51] Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
- [Bug 32] DAV:displayname handling
- [Bug 30] incorrect XML in example
- [Bug 29] refreshing locks
- [Bug 28] MOVE vs live properties
- [Bug 27] COPY vs live properties
- [Bug 26] URL syntax in PROPFIND
- [Bug 25] lock to unmapped URL
- [Bug 24] lost-update vs collections
- [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks
- [Bug 22] attributes on properties
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 21] XML element definitions
- [Bug 20] lock token example
- [Bug 19] DAV:no-lock
- [Bug 18] no record of consensus for force-authenticate
- [Bug 17] XML NS terminology
- [Bug 16] Trailing slash required in collection names?
- [Bug 15] DAV:error description inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 14] new requirements on ETags vs property changes
- [Bug 13] new ETag requirements
- [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"
- [Bug 11] Protection against XML Denial Of Service attacks
- [Bug 10] Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
- [Bug 9] XML namespace discussion
- [Bug 8] Section 9.1: extend production
- [Bug 7] Example for PROPFIND/allprop missing
- [Bug 6] Collection Lock vs MOVE with Overwrite
- [Bug 74] Remove UUID generation instructions
- [Bug 53] DAV:responsedescription content model
- [Bug 52] "mandatory" properties
- [Bug 51] Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
- [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253
- [Bug 49] propfind XML description incorrect
- [Bug 48] XML extensibility description
- [Bug 47] 3xx in multistatus
- [Bug 46] URLs in Multistatus
- [Bug 45] DAV request header
- [Bug 44] OPTIONS *
- [Bug 43] "ill-formed" XML
- [Bug 42] Consider deprecating text/xml for XML request/response bodies
- [Bug 69] Formatting lost in appendix B.2
- [Bug 68] Reference to XML spec
- [Bug 67] non-ASCII characters
- [Bug 66] references style
- [Bug 65] Table of Contents missing
- [Bug 63] typo in 13.16 "name" line
- [Bug 62] href format
- [Bug 61] invalid lock token in example
- [Bug 60] If header evaluation when?
- [Bug 59] failed LOCK response body
- [Bug 58] MOVE status 403 description
- [Bug 57] incorrect section reference
- [Bug 56] 423 Locked in Multistatus for PROPPATCH?
- [Bug 55] Multistatus format (empty)
- [Bug 64] Incorrect IETF boilerplate
- [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings