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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 13 Apr 2021, at 11:43, Yakov Shafranovich 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

> Given that the date in that section of that draft is meant to be machine
> parsed, choosing RFC 5322 (neé 822) date formats is a particularly bad
> idea, given the existence of RFC 3339.

Whenever machine parsing enters the picture the other syntax that should be
considered is integer milliseconds since epoch. (This syntax is increasingly
popular in the schemata I encounter.) However, I think there's also a need for
this to be readable. RFC 3339 seems like the right balance to me.

				Ned