IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 14 April 2021 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95C53A0DEE; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.971
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JB1PkK2M28Ve; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 925793A0DE7; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from [84.9.76.236] (port=50969 helo=milebook.lan) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:fanf2) (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1lWgW6-000h9P-7m (Exim 4.94) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:29:18 +0100
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:29:17 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: "Eliot Lear (elear)" <elear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@nightwatchcybersecurity.com>, "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <C7B5DB45-F0A1-491C-AD4E-91F67C8C182E@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <ffa85d1c-457-ec65-3f3c-c143d14f3550@dotat.at>
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com> <C7B5DB45-F0A1-491C-AD4E-91F67C8C182E@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="0-1013978039-1618410376=:43284"
Content-ID: <1c76cb8c-7674-e992-7841-7ede80ba9fc4@cam.ac.uk>
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/677aX4bFWNTAdAQTG4VwvqMve-w>
Subject: Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:29:26 -0000

Eliot Lear (elear) <elear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> The question is whether you need something that is easy to parse or
> something that is human readable and can be localized.  It SEEMs that
> this draft is intended to be human readable, and so 5322 doesn’t seem
> out of bounds.

security.txt is also likely to be written by humans, and RFC 5322 dates
have a lot of subtle details that are difficult to get right. For
instance, what is a parser supposed to do if the day of week is
inconsistent with the date?

RFC 3339 is much simpler to write by hand.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  https://dotat.at/
Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire, Forties: Northerly or
northwesterly 3 to 5, becoming variable 3 or less later. Slight or
moderate. Showers. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email