cti message

Subject: Re: [cti] Motion to open a ballot on the STIX timestamp format

From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@newcontext.com>
To: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:50:52 -0800

Bret Jordan (CS) wrote this message on Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 18:57 +0000:
> Based on this discussion, and information we have learned from it, if we keep our current timestamps then we need to add some bounds checking to the number of sub-second digits so as to not break digital signatures.

Can you explain more about this?  As timestamps are a text field, I do
not see how this can break digital signatures.

-- 
John-Mark

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [cti] Motion to open a ballot on the STIX timestamp format
  - From: Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@surevine.com>
- Re: [cti] Motion to open a ballot on the STIX timestamp format
  - From: Trey Darley <trey@kingfisherops.com>

References:
- Motion to open a ballot on the STIX timestamp format
  - From: Trey Darley <trey@kingfisherops.com>
- Re: [cti] Motion to open a ballot on the STIX timestamp format
  - From: "Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>
- Re: [cti] Motion to open a ballot on the STIX timestamp format
  - From: "Bret Jordan (CS)" <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>