[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Timestamps, yet again
As this issue was brought up at the Face2Face, and thus reopened for debate and consensus, and the consensus today was leaning toward the use of RFC3339 as is, without further stipulation and the removal of timestamp_precision field, I thought it would be best to re-read the RFC for clarification. Section 4.2. Local Offsets Allows for local time, so long as it is an offset from UTC 5.8. Examples 1996-12-19T16:39:57-08:00 I do not see anything in RFC3339 that allows for dates/times with less precision than a fully qualified timestamp: yyyymmddThh:mm:ssZ ISO8601 does explicitly allow for reduced precision by just truncating the value. From my understanding of the community we have the following requirements: 1) Represent reduced precision 2015Z 201501Z 20150114Z 20150114T23Z 20150114T23:21Z 20150114T23:21:20Z 20150114T23:21:20.1Z 20150114T23:21:20.12Z 20150114T23:21:20.123Z etc. 2) Represent an arbitrary number of fractional sections 20150114T23:21:20.1Z 20150114T23:21:20.12Z 20150114T23:21:20.123Z etc. 3) Represent values in local time as a offset to UTC or in UTC 20150114T23:21:20.123456Z 20150114T23:21:20.123456-08:00 Thanks, Bret Bret Jordan CISSP Director 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." |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]