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

[Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>]

I'm using the datetimeoffset(7) in XORCISM

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb630289.aspx



2015-11-26 19:58 GMT+03:00 Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>:
> just as an example on SQL Server. Ref.
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187819.aspx
>
> "ISO 8601
>
> Description
>
> YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss[.mmm]
>
> YYYYMMDD[ hh:mm:ss[.mmm]]
>
> Examples:
>
> 2004-05-23T14:25:10
>
> 2004-05-23T14:25:10.487
>
> To use the ISO 8601 format, you must specify each element in the
> format. This also includes the T, the colons (:), and the period (.)
> that are shown in the format.
>
> The brackets indicate that the fraction of second component is
> optional. The time component is specified in the 24-hour format.
>
> The T indicates the start of the time part of the datetime value.
>
> The advantage in using the ISO 8601 format is that it is an
> international standard with unambiguous specification."
>
>
> 2015-11-26 19:33 GMT+03:00 Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>:
>> I don't mind buying the last version if you feel it would be needed
>> for me to review?
>> While talking about implementation, optimization... there is some
>> decent docs from/around apache log4j
>> We should not be perfect first time. But some kind of regex-like in
>> the spec + guidance would be a good start (that could be reviewed over
>> time)
>>
>> PS: for time gurus
>> http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Service/Glossary/tai.html?nn=14894
>>
>>
>> 2015-11-26 1:25 GMT+03:00 Tony Rutkowski <tony@yaanatech.com>:
>>> Does anyone actually have a copy of this
>>> specification?  At $173, no one is likely to
>>> ever purchase it.  Everyone discusses it,
>>> but has anyone ever seen it?
>>>
>>> On 2015-11-25 4:17 PM, Struse, Richard wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, I think we are all talking about ISO 8601:2004 not the
>>> earlier versions which allowed two-digit years.   Not sure how to interpret
>>> #3 – ISO 8601 allows for the least
>>>
>>>
>>>