Re: [cti] timestamp proposal for STIX 2.0 RC3

["Wunder, John A." <jwunder@mitre.org>]

I should have been more precise (groan), I meant both range and precision there.

Just so everyone knows we’re working on ballot text for the two timestamp topics (timestamp format, and whether or not to include any timestamp precision fields) and should have those open sometime early next week.

John

On 12/9/16, 4:49 PM, "John-Mark Gurney" <jmg@newcontext.com> wrote:

    Wunder, John A. wrote this message on Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 18:04 +0000:
    > Let’s have a quick informal ballot, and depending on how that goes we probably should move to a formal ballot. In order of preference, what do you think:
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 1.       Keep the old ISO8601 format, no limits on acceptable dates.
    > 
    > 2.       Keep the old ISO8601 format, but add limits on acceptable precision and date ranges.
    > 
    > 3.       Use this new epoch format, no limits on acceptable dates.
    
    You don't mention precision on this one, so I'm going to assume that you said no limits
    on precision in this one either.
    
    > 
    > 4.       Use this new epoch format, but add limits on acceptable precision and date ranges.
    
    I would say, 1 then 2.
    
    I would rank 4 over 3 simply because of the fact that if 3 does not limit precision,
    it becomes a quagmire no matter how you look at it.  If 3 limits the precision, but
    not range, then I would rank 3 over 4 as where ever we put the fix point for 3 will
    ensure that the limits hit by modern implementations will not happen for the next few
    centuries...
    
    -- 
    John-Mark