One of the core elements of the proposal is that you MUST include the timezone offset. If this is not sufficient, or we have gone in error, please speak up.
Thanks,
Bret Bret Jordan CISSPDirector of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO Blue Coat Systems PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
It’s a case of balancing “perfection is the enemy of the good” and “learn from other people’s mistakes.” Especially, if the mistakes were made by us. In 2000, I would not expect a protocol or data format to be in anything other than UTC. In 2015, I cannot imagine anything else. Note that SMTP comes close - if your definition of “local time zone” is “2015-12-07T10:10:53.543000-05:00”, then realize you are ALREADY in UTC. Given that is the proposal agreed to, I’ll shut up. So long as the text points this out. Namely, that the generator of the timestamp is responsible for calculating the offset. The ironic thing is I will bet 99.9% of the generators use UTC internally and will convert to local time, to which someone will write code to format it into ASCII, where the repository will receive the ASCII time string, convert it to a time, and then apply the presented offset from UTC (-5h in this example) to regenerate the original UTC. I think I need to buy more Intel stock ;-) On Dec 7, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Trey Darley <trey@soltra.com> wrote:
On 06.12.2015 08:16:45, Eric Burger wrote:
If the goal is to work with a standard that works everywhere in the
world and is immune to local, flavor of the day definitions of
“local time,” the *ONLY* option is UTC. The world cannot agree to a
single repository to lookup what local time is. The Internet
community has put one up on a volunteer basis, but it explicitly
states that it is not normative, may be wrong, and will almost
certainly be out of date.
Hi, Eric -
On a technical level, I agree with you 110%. But as the timestamp
discussion was approaching Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in terms of
wordcount, in the interest of achieving consensus I agreed with
supporting multiple timezones.
In your view, is the potential downside of *not* making UTC mandatory
*so* detrimental as to justify reopening this debate, or can we live
with the current consensus?
--
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
--
"There's never enough time. Thank you for yours." --Dan Geer
|