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

[Trey Darley <trey@kingfisherops.com>]

On 07.12.2016 16:50:52, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> 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.
> 

Bret -

Echoing John-Mark and Jason's questions, I also cannot see the impact
on digital signatures. Could you please provide additional background
to help us understand your concerns?

-- 
Cheers,
Trey
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
Kingfisher Operations, sprl
gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4  5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
--
"Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and a
different presentation, regardless of whether it works." --RFC 1925

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature