Allan Thomson wrote this message on Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 22:19 +0000:
> Hi All – As discussed on the working call on Tuesday I took the action to come back with an updated proposal on how to represent timestamps numerically instead of requiring the string representation as is currently defined in STIX 2.0 RC3.
>
> Please find attached the proposal(s).
Proposal #1 isn't defined enough to be used. UNIX Epoch only defines the
start time, but does not define how things like leap seconds will be
handled, or what time base it uses. Does it use TAI-10? POSIX UTC?
real UTC? Does it follow POSIX UTC which pretends that leap seconds
don't exist, and instead repeates a second, so it is not possible to
know the order time stamps when a leap second is inserted?
For more information, please read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time#Leap_seconds
> Proposal #1 is the preferred approach but including 2 options for consideration to see if others have a different preference.
I'm puzzled why Proposal #2 is NOT using a JSON number, but a string.
It should use a number. Are you not using a number to work around
issues w/ some JSON parsers not being able to handle large numbers correctly?
Proposal #2 I assume would include leap seconds, as that is implied in
RFC 5905. I don't know many libaries that support NTP dates that are
generally available, so w/o proper library support, Proposal #2 seems
to be much worse than the existing RFC 3339 usage already decided upon.
Another good read about issues w/ time bases is:
http://www.madore.org/~david/computers/unix-leap-seconds.html
--
John-Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php