Re: [calsify] Fwd: New Timestamp Draft

On 1/23/21 18:17, Ned Freed wrote:
> Generality has real costs. To name the obvious example, I don't want to
> *ever* see a timezone rule in a log file timestamp, or a field in an
> email message.

I have had a number of conversations with people tasked with auditing 
log records bemoaning the lack of a timezone id in logs. Without the id 
how do we know how an offset or UTC date was calculated?

Accurately recording the date/time that an event occurred is as 
important for logging as it is for future events.

{and I don't think we're talking about rules - just ids]

>
> I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if all you were proposing a new
> format for calendar usage. Calendars are unusual in that they routinely deal
> with dates in the future, and worse, dates in the future that are subject to
> the vagarities of human behavior - so a given value does NOT, in general,
> specify a fixed point in time.
>
> But you're proposing a replacement for ISO 8601/RFC 3339, with the implication
> that absent per-application profiling you have to accept the gamut. That IMO
> goes too far.
>
> 				Ned

>
>> CCing the Calsify ML because I didn't include it in the original email
>> by mistake.
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [calsify] New Timestamp Draft
>> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 02:51:00 +0530
>> From: Ujjwal Sharma <ryzokuken@igalia.com>
>> Organization: Igalia S.L.
>> To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
>> Hi Ned!
>> I could not agree with you more on the different matters. Here's the
>> response to the specific points raised by you.
>> On 23/01/2021 12.17 am, Ned Freed wrote:
>>> +1. The stability of this specification has been invaluable.
>> Please refer to my email to Eliot for more clarification on this.
>> Overall, this is a goal that I share wholeheartedy, and the whole idea
>> behind the new draft is to design it in a way that is very generalized
>> and that allows us to avoid any further additions to it and keep a
>> similar level of stability. Note for example the deferring of key
>> selection and standardization to bodies like IANA and Unicode consortium.
>>> +1. And if there's some sort of liason with ISO or whoever is responsible
>>> for this, they should be engaged.
>> My understanding of the situation has been that this liason would be
>> CalConnect. By all means, we have been collaborating quite closely with
>> them, thanks to the amazing efforts of Ronald Tse and have plans to work
>> with them further to enable greater adoption.
>> Hope this helps, please feel free to ask for further clarifications.
>> Best,
>> Ujjwal
>> --
>> Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him)
>> Compilers Hacker, Node.js Core Collaborator and Speaker
> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list
> calsify@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify