Re: #29: correcting corrected_initial_age

On 10/03/2010, at 12:19 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:


> Before I go on with the actual change for issue 29, I'd like to collect some feedback on the rearranged text, defining the data for the age calculation.

I think so.

> Also - Mark - is...:
> "See Section 9.3.1 of [Part1] for requirements regarding responses without a Date response header."
> this the reference you had in mind for absent Date headers?

No; it's just section 9.3; in particular this text:

>    A received message that does not have a Date header field MUST be
>    assigned one by the recipient if the message will be cached by that
>    recipient or gatewayed via a protocol which requires a Date.  

Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:20:48 UTC