Re: [art] US-ASCII and its various namesRe: [art] US-ASCII and its various names
John C Klensin
2023-12-18
art
None
/arch/msg/art/KLPKKAAs1SGlSEb9jFtrRTWibK8/
3396486
2103138
Re: [art] US-ASCII and its various namesRe: [art] US-ASCII and its various names
Rob Sayre
2023-12-18
art
None
/arch/msg/art/JV0zRqphnqaz2HnXCCvSUSbcyrU/
3396463
2103138
Re: [Rswg] RSAB decision on RPC policy question on “use of <u>”Re: [Rswg] RSAB decision on RPC policy question on “use of <u>”
Julian Reschke
2022-12-24
rswg
None
/arch/msg/rswg/pCtZIWtOx8HLFXqYu3UW3jobDyk/
3260489
2044450
Re: support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-dateRe: support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-date
Julian Reschke
2022-12-03
httpbisa
None
/arch/msg/httpbisa/HdiiN3esBJs1IkwIDtoEC_T5EhI/
3254053
2041771
Re: [auth48] [IANA #1233863] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your reviewRe: [auth48] [IANA #1233863] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
Lynne Bartholomew
2022-07-21
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/wSeplg8jTVyGPfcEh09Q76JKh7w/
3203131
2020720
[auth48] [IANA #1233863] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review[auth48] [IANA #1233863] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
Sabrina Tanamal via RT
2022-07-21
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/CIF-hcW6B6vHaq4bt5TY5Fxyau8/
3203128
2020720
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
Lynne Bartholomew
2022-07-21
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/9osMfQQcndpM42ZcCC0iINDC8uA/
3203029
2020720
Re: [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your reviewRe: [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
Lynne Bartholomew
2022-07-20
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/1dyOZEAwY-0UflbPVN_QRJa2ckk/
3202661
2020720
[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
Lynne Bartholomew
2022-07-20
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/pGUBq6b-y6PQqDPv2v80BWzzA-8/
3202657
2020720
Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your reviewRe: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9264 <draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-10> for your review
rfc-editor
2022-07-12
auth48archive
None
/arch/msg/auth48archive/zF_xT9BGWiQrExgtf8XCe6zp1J0/
3199707
2020720
Re: [httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)Re: [httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Herbert Van de Sompel
2022-03-23
httpapi
None
/arch/msg/httpapi/UeVP10HKyN7Qe89cawH-GvhX8hc/
3162425
1993670
Re: [httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)Re: [httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk
2022-03-15
httpapi
None
/arch/msg/httpapi/ena9mwdEjuHZEVq0om3Mg2uOvmg/
3131821
1993670
Re: [httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)Re: [httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Herbert Van de Sompel
2022-03-08
httpapi
None
/arch/msg/httpapi/xpB2bvgAc_bc0QlM7yYTDP4h3Vg/
3129789
1993670
[httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)[httpapi] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
2022-03-02
httpapi
None
/arch/msg/httpapi/2k6oY-4PbbRnC-gDkpybdpQDfZ8/
3126936
1993670
Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3
Brian E Carpenter
2020-12-17
rfc-interest
None
/arch/msg/rfc-interest/NdY0dlAIMviU_Hw5LJZ9LXQc3i4/
2977202
1927968
Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3
Julian Reschke
2020-12-17
rfc-interest
None
/arch/msg/rfc-interest/34TaMl9dl5pXXT7VvNJQsr_T4Ls/
2977178
1927968
Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration and characters representationRe: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration and characters representation
Patrick Mevzek
2018-11-04
regext
None
/arch/msg/regext/BC_i04lciDK44z62BB15yIzGbxA/
2654860
1813276
[art] Fwd: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create a mailing list for discussing these projects[art] Fwd: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create a mailing list for discussing these projects
pradeep
2018-07-24
art
None
/arch/msg/art/PX-zniFnZWwksl9aaIswxV8Yrko/
2614514
1797712
Re: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create a mailing list for discussing these projectsRe: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create a mailing list for discussing these projects
valdis.kletnieks
2018-07-23
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/T82j5uurmnVBV1fGsdc_PQQraog/
2614336
1797382
[httpwg/http-extensions] structured-headers: Why ignore UTF-8? (#537)[httpwg/http-extensions] structured-headers: Why ignore UTF-8? (#537)
HTTP issue updates
2018-03-28
http-issues
None
/arch/msg/http-issues/1voh14FX9zoQNCiNGlvimkMyGoo/
2564428
1778082
Re: [rfc-i] RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII charactersRe: [rfc-i] RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
Frank Ellermann
2017-10-21
rfc-interest
None
/arch/msg/rfc-interest/N2X-6xXRJiXQcLa5Ojzqnmj3C1M/
2497403
1733671
Re: [rfc-i] RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII charactersRe: [rfc-i] RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
Frank Ellermann
2017-10-21
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/YwqGahX47pkc8HrCzN9fk76EbsM/
2497402
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Joel M. Halpern
2017-10-11
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/fkTS8NhGM4SK4Bgnv2-b6JO-kXQ/
2470217
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Stewart Bryant
2017-10-11
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/itPezsPmFFqpm7AMzV2wRfWBENo/
2470094
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Andrew G. Malis
2017-10-10
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/nJAp5debp_UIrHUTL-zbB-mr2fA/
2469759
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Yoav Nir
2017-10-10
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/w63EPTHSxb8LvDCDsXxMH1xvIGM/
2469725
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
John C Klensin
2017-10-10
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/J_GxEk7LpiQOQunhIYSdf-VXlMg/
2469345
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Edito…
2017-10-09
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/_pSGjIo0_Emy9Sy1BLO4AnOqZMA/
2469231
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Brian E Carpenter
2017-10-09
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/a2arNwDgrsDeDvP2k7AsdtOG5xw/
2469180
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
John C Klensin
2017-10-09
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/JQyzHMh0y_Gx5ejUSjDWjmqLg20/
2469048
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Matthew Kerwin
2017-09-27
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/T3JSIJxyz6H11uVEM8hQyFkvoYk/
2464242
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
tom p.
2017-09-27
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/8hFQBOWrrLzqf9SDBpQ-XiztaQk/
2464240
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Matthew Kerwin
2017-09-26
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/Q76tbC_yeFn7VIzOp1ri7AQ4GkI/
2464099
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Carsten Bormann
2017-09-26
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/OTMsFUTQVlQ1sIn81WK8rEBJ8Xs/
2464080
1733670
Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Matthew Kerwin
2017-09-26
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/7GOoVZ78VhaOIys6qEdDtLQvd6E/
2464061
1733670
So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
Brian E Carpenter
2017-09-26
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/r_gPlAClGeqR414c0NW35SmDw3s/
2464041
1733670
[IPP] Interesting recent RFCs[IPP] Interesting recent RFCs
Ira McDonald
2017-09-23
ipp
None
/arch/msg/ipp/cFlzwb6Sr9QoDjl-d1fhMd-WIK4/
2462901
1739089
Re: [rfc-i] RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII charactersRe: [rfc-i] RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
Julian Reschke
2017-09-22
rfc-interest
None
/arch/msg/rfc-interest/z5cpKlIf-3H-HgxdKW76IOnoUEw/
2462718
1733671
Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII charactersRe: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
Julian Reschke
2017-09-22
ietf
None
/arch/msg/ietf/wODtg8yGJgc1YSX38OVGYc4bFNE/
2462719
1733670
Re: [Tools-discuss] BOMs and rfcmarkupRe: [Tools-discuss] BOMs and rfcmarkup
Henrik Levkowetz
2017-09-20
tools-discuss
None
/arch/msg/tools-discuss/IoO0SMua_S8eJ0CD-91zesiKvSQ/
2447821
1734205