IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 B681E3A240D; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 2hYeHgZJJv7g; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fly.apple.relay.mailchannels.net (fly.apple.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.208.61]) (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 AFC063A2407; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1830102649; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:19:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (100-101-162-39.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.101.162.39]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 28D771016AC; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:19:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.101.162.39 (trex/6.1.1); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:19:43 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Good
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Company-Company: 5bf43abc66538abe_1618341583629_2833403677
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618341583629:3743367100
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618341583629
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF99488842; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=zhUSrwg43mhfpCd0WlMFt9GTcEM=; b=LydVgtsfLvg /j8aMT/6xMW0RZl1UCn0/4NkF3a09BAxZeaLiKI/iOTprzpbfLkm+fTDu7ehByEM bPEZZqG0NW5ZCfWyrClftEakNR0FTEa2zsmfJxsLC/lZzmOUeb6X2CZmD705Hrd/ aagyNUDaK7AH2MK9PacG41W9CQGmIGRM=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06B3E88846; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:19:38 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a57
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
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>
Message-ID: <20210413191937.GK9612@localhost>
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com> <C7B5DB45-F0A1-491C-AD4E-91F67C8C182E@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C7B5DB45-F0A1-491C-AD4E-91F67C8C182E@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/_yptWJUzzYI9-tYliszURBczf4o>
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 19:19:51 -0000

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:00:17PM +0000, Eliot Lear (elear) 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.

English-centric much?  :)

Seriously, RFC 5322 is unnecessarily English centric, and ISO 8601 is
universally understandable.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email