Re: [cti-stix] STIX timestamps and ISO 8601:2000

[Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com>]

On 23.11.2015 13:01:15, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> 
> All timestamps should follow the exact same mandatory format. Having
> optional different representations of things, is why STIX is so
> complicated and we have agreed to move away from that direction.
> Surely, for something as simple as a timestamp, we can make some
> progress here and all agree on one mandatory format....
> 

To me, that's the entire point. Agree with you 110%.

> 
> On the other hand, if people think this is silly because hardly
> anyone can produce nanoseconds, then we should drop nanoseconds and
> only include milliseconds in the mandatory format until such a time.
> 

I don't insist on nanoseconds. I thought there was demand and since
the bits are cheap, why not futureproof? Since it seems I misread the
general consensus, let's standardize on nanoseconds and be done with
it. The point is a) let's have one clear way to do it and b) let's
take a decision so we can move on to other topics.

-- 
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B  A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
www.soltra.com
--
"It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems into a
single complex interdependent solution. In most cases this is a bad
idea." --RFC 1925

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature