IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] [art] Two specifications on timestamps nearing WGLC

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 07 October 2022 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B70C159822; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 22:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x0Y1CsEPPCZN; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 22:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6186C15259C; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 22:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [185.201.63.253]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CB0B1F459; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 05:15:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id DFB401A073E; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 07:15:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: art@ietf.org
cc: =?utf-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, sedate@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org, tictoc@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <2620A4D0-F624-4E31-BDD1-860B40F7A31D@tzi.org>
References: <19C0959C-2DFF-4FA6-9691-792CD2AF5E09@tzi.org> <f7a05134-7ec0-411a-fcc5-d0e80c74d6c6@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <2620A4D0-F624-4E31-BDD1-860B40F7A31D@tzi.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> message dated "Wed, 05 Oct 2022 01:42:20 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 27.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 06:15:32 +0100
Message-ID: <193653.1665119732@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/RYDJY0wxA6cj9fFSWNMEOlc1x0g>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [art] Two specifications on timestamps nearing WGLC
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 05:15:58 -0000

Carsten, is there a typo?

Former: "Section 4.3 of [RFC3339] states that an offset given as Z or +00:00
implies that "UTC is the preferred reference point for the specified time".

Latter: "The offset -00:00 is provided as a way to express that "the time in UTC is known, but the offset to local time is unknown".


> This convention mirrors a similar convention for date/time information in
> email headers, described in Section 3.3 of [RFC5322] and introduced earlier
> in Section 3.3 of [RFC2822].

> The latter convention is in actual use, while
> the former always was handicapped by the fact that [ISO8601:1988] does not
> actually allow -00:00.

It seems that the -00:00 notation is the "latter", instead it ?

I've seen +00:00 and -00:00 regularly in email.
(Actually, I didn't know what -00:00 meant until I read this.  It seems
pretty common when email originates through Outlook.com)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status