IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
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 EA7593A2398 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 KLMyakUlDvlY for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C89AA3A2369 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id w8so20552321lfr.0 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=llkTOMkdXz36HXBpet4gaxk6T1b6TY3OX3vaM/8HD9s=; b=VNAh9LiLmS3jeAMQTzrSmopsx2T92+GnII6MNUwfTkKJj7+C9R6CL8KhNuonlYTP6T 3esGCKYYpdMCt3N5eluVMR9Q3trGNkTW+Tr0PEhavAbcvSdEZfiTWztc6e0jY/HseAlm mHkkbSoDHxJLOIaVbuob2KyfdDR916IR4zaRpnrSyYaQqANX/0ZecaPXg7mapbLazQip bjeU6SraCbx13/1pmxHPFRaMx4OP3TRYeETyA+5LYl7EnQl7yxbqwar7tX4flumngTv5 CM1SxVEgjwWpHjX06MdEA2n/arnJcokDCJ3GEofqSN9dN+QoCuof6IUvL5f7igysqZpI p66g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=llkTOMkdXz36HXBpet4gaxk6T1b6TY3OX3vaM/8HD9s=; b=sH85i9DY2nXeMk5ChC4MyLzQmPE9+xlhikDQ3onyjXEL/MTfaDnANK0L5g2wFAJpSY B/XgTypOZtURlYT6GRiMmbPqGMFlrtwqa1q4HjJrTZl+VKNGjYnfweWkyPSGkR8e8YmQ Mzd1GemoAcHd7AFr0GIOb2lITo6R6JAnzyxVHBnGrXL2clHaCuzmVebDHvm0q26EMI7G x1qvqSP8jYqWT1Hg68NVH513baVvwrTR2/A/LCnRgQ1d9wyk5DMUHylM7es5Q7yJb9D9 HdV9VI3bd96ysSNcIL3a7bhzScj04pm0TqfBuK5KOBd+L1gMrpz9mo6VYl3fsddW8/7a DVeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530lmQ22e5UZfaQXfZClx0Mzn64xG6z7yP5BiS0t9L6Dy/EpsyDH cxD5p6MC898E0x1Xnkw5k1k4rLlKBKaeUGV8tJWpDg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwclmPLqPM2Li/sDUcN9UxdFNEeIhkdIzeywG5PrUzufcuvwQtJ0QHdhDArPAuZ+QwyETG4si8u3ny9xlCG1uQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3087:: with SMTP id z7mr23370532lfd.224.1618340671620; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:04:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuPeMMe6F4iQjz2V96LDApYQp1EvTPMqK1SPzb_vSrW3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@nightwatchcybersecurity.com>
Cc: IETF Security Area Advisory Group <saag@ietf.org>, art@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dbaa9205bfdf4cd1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/SLVhDlnn8GTxNdnwo3TTdTVCanc>
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: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:04:50 -0000

For use in protocols, I think you'd probably find that most people would
strongly favor the use of 3339 if at all possible.

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Yakov Shafranovich <
yakov@nightwatchcybersecurity.com> wrote:

> Is there a preference for Internet drafts/RFCs regarding the specific
> data/time format to be used?
>
> Right now we are referencing RFC 5322, but there has been feedback
> from multiple people that the ISO 8601 format is easier to parse. This
> is in regards to the section 3.5.5 of "draft-foudil-securitytxt-11"
> that I am working on:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-11#section-3.5.4
>
> The options I am asking about are the following:
> - RFC 3339 (a profile of ISO 8601)
> Example: 2021-04-13T06:50:53-07:00
>
> - RFC 5322, section 3.3
> Example: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:50:53 -0700
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email