Re: Timestamps, yet again

On Jan 14, 2016, at 22:19, Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@BLUECOAT.COM> wrote:

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."

cti message