[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] timestamp proposal for STIX 2.0 RC3
Do we want or need to add any non-normative / information text that helps developers know that they probably need to use a float64 in code to store this data?
Bret From: cti@lists.oasis-open.org <cti@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 10:24:03 AM To: cti@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cti] timestamp proposal for STIX 2.0 RC3 Hey everyone, I wanted to follow up to this thread and the conversation on the call today with the normative text that we’ve drafted for timestamps so you have something solid to look at. So, assuming we were to develop an alternative to the current approach to capture float Unix epochs, would this text work for everyone? Any suggestions or corrections? The next step after we solidify this proposal is to open a ballot on whether we should keep the current timestamp text (RFC3339/ISO8601) or switch to this text. But first let’s make sure we all agree on what the alternative is so that people can vote between two well-defined options. Thanks, John 2.10. Timestamp Type Name:
timestamp Timestamps in STIX are represented as a number of seconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970) in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). The JSON MTI serialization uses the JSON number type
<TODO: add reference> when representing
timestamp. 2.10.1. Requirements ·
The timestamp field
MUST be positive decimal number between 0 and 4102462800 (January 1, 2100) containing no more than picosecond precision. ·
The timestamp field
MUST represent a number of seconds since January 1, 1970, in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) as defined by ITU-R TF.460-6. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]