- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:57:32 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11.10.2010 18:54, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * 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. Except for the payload question: that's all common sense, right? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 16:58:10 UTC