Re: Issue 248: client "Date" requirements

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>> "Clients MAY send a Date header (when a clock is present)".
> This is a bit too brief IMO; the advice about not sending it without a 
> payload is useful (because it saves bytes, as you noted).

Can I also point out that the "(when a clock is present)" part is unnecessary 
since if it is a MAY any implementor that doesn't have a clock surely will 
then consider not sending a date or will have another way of figuring out the 
timestamp to include there...



Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 06:51:21 UTC