W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:54:21 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <73g6b6dud5q8e84fndlr2l19r4kufvd7br@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Julian Reschke wrote:
>the spec currently says:
>"Clients SHOULD only send a Date header field in messages that include a 
>payload, as is usually the case for PUT and POST requests, and even then 
>it is optional. A client without a clock MUST NOT send a Date header 
>field in a request."
>(this comes from RFC 2616).
>This is very wrong:
>"SHOULD only .. and even then it is optional".
>So, if it's optional, it's MAY. I don't believe we need to say that 
>clients "MAY" send a Date header :-).

It's saying that a client must not send a Date header if the client has
no clock, it should not send a Date header of there is no payload, and
it may send a Date header otherwise. The wording may not be optimal but
the intent seems clear.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 16:54:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC