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

["Barnum, Sean D." <sbarnum@mitre.org>]

I am not against quick (though complete) discussion and decisions being made but they MUST be tied to an issue with appropriate comments as John suggests here.

sean




On 11/23/15, 9:40 AM, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Wunder, John A." <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of jwunder@mitre.org> wrote:

>Yep! Given the restrictions on RF3339 (it’s a more tightly defined format) my preference is to that. As a bonus, we’ll also be compatible with ISO 8601. Win-win.
>
>So how about we alter your previous statement to:
>
>"Anyone with a good argument *against* RFC3339+UTC+milliseconds speak
>up now. If there's no compelling argument against, then please let's
>move on.”
>
>How would we encode decisions like this? I would probably have added an issue with a comment.
>
>John
>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 23.11.2015 13:27:00, Wunder, John A. wrote:
>>> 
>>> RFC3339 is a “profile" of ISO8601: all RFC3339 timestamps are
>>> ISO8601 timestamps, but not all ISO8601 timestamps are RFC3339
>>> timestamps.
>>> 
>>> See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/522251/whats-the-difference-between-iso-8601-and-rfc-3339-date-formats
>>> 
>> 
>> Precisely! John, you and I were obviously referencing the same sources. ^_^
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> --
>> "No matter how hard you try, you can't make a baby in much less than 9
>> months. Trying to speed this up *might* make it slower, but it won't
>> make it happen any quicker." --RFC 1925
>