[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] CTI TC Timestamps - Proposed: Adopt the ISO 8601 <start>/<end> construct.
I agree with you that this could potentially remove the need for the separate precision field.
sean
From: <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 12:20 AM To: Patrick Maroney <Pmaroney@Specere.org> Cc: OASIS CTI TC Discussion List <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [cti] CTI TC Timestamps - Proposed: Adopt the ISO 8601 <start>/<end> construct.
I have thought a lot about this, since Pat first brought it up and I believe he has a solid case for this. I do think that this might be a bit weird in the UI treatments if every timestamp allows a range. But that is an implementation issue. I have questions
of how this differs from precision. And if we do this, can we not just drop the extra precision field? That could make processing so much easier.
Before we accept this, I would love to see some normative text written and added to the pre-draft specs. I would like to see some examples of how precision would effect this and the normative text that would surround it (or can we just drop the
precision field).
Can we also get a line or two of text that talks about what to do if your tool can only support one timestamp? I am guessing you would take the first one?
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."
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]