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

Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:57:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB341FC.5040604@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:28 GMT