Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 14 April 2021 04:22 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 6D3A43A1ACC; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 KdfE--24I7WO; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dog.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (dog.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.48]) (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 472943A1ACB; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFDC921CD8; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 04:22:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io (100-96-16-47.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.16.47]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 564859222F4; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 04:22:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io ([UNAVAILABLE]. [185.224.136.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.96.16.47 (trex/6.1.1); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 04:22:45 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Plucky-Average: 237387723a185e38_1618374165474_2050355545
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618374165473:1132739903
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618374165473
Received: from [192.168.0.111] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by nl-srv-smtpout1.hostinger.io (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id 65A7F22693AE; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 04:22:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1618374161; bh=Q0HIaW/U/xkIVw6QqZqwbXkA6Cf/0B0ZaC8bghcTst0=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=GHjW/4xxePk3wETVI2nAByr1/FRBN8xNyTDluocVVZYkah4/na4K5T1eVZ0lsBbYb Qyml1Mif8HuFFgRovyPAEWJD9fbFpeglwUaDrswB8xLUAe7HGjHqYDPw44QZNkuObd W9PVKeSn5X0G5kS4u3L/mOC9ZVZ/07gmZQ+E36AvuqMwYGCL5Pg7w7xXWc7MX1th78 5t5EFew20ru4fzQQ5eHPu+TnSQY2rfKd7Dmb1FZkoXTNhBPaMd9Jgb/p9yPDeFIoh6 TjuVoaHC48/NsW62gDyy7mhAqNbr6GsSaAAb/2gVYh5IWLazD6060cEB7VAwnCExTh B4J2iIYsdC+rQ==
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, "Eliot Lear (elear)" <elear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@nightwatchcybersecurity.com>
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com> <C7B5DB45-F0A1-491C-AD4E-91F67C8C182E@cisco.com> <20210413191937.GK9612@localhost>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <adf764ae-cb85-5063-0071-cc1461b11f1f@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:22:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210413191937.GK9612@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/NXIKnXDxgF7-RIMSUoYV04adMXk>
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 04:22:53 -0000
On 4/13/2021 12:19 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > English-centric much?:) The RFC5322 date format was not designed for use as extensive as venues speaking English. It's original target for use was restricted only to North America (cf, RFC733). I thought it quite exciting to even include Atlantic Standard Time, as well as the zones for Hawaii and Alaska, although getting the latter turned into a bit of an exercise. I was working at The Rand Corporation at the time and had been told that the Librarian there had magical research skills. The timezone topic finally prompted my contacting her and asking for help. She said she'd see what she could find. I don't think it was as much as a half-hour before she called back with the answer. I was duly impressed. (Astonished would be the more apt word.) So I asked her how she found the answer that quickly. She told me she call the phone company's information operator for Juneau and asked her what they called their timezone. She then repeated the exercise for Oahu... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Eliot Lear (elear)
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Tim Bray
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Nico Williams
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Nico Williams
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Julian Reschke
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Nico Williams
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… John C Klensin
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Randy Bush
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Ned Freed
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Michael Douglass
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Dave Crocker
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Stian Soiland-Reyes
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Alan DeKok
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Tony Finch
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… heather flanagan
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… John Levine
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… tom petch
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Steve Allen
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… heather flanagan
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… tom petch
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Stian Soiland-Reyes
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Steve Allen
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Metapolymath Majordomo
- Re: [art] [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Yakov Shafranovich