Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-01.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 27 July 2022 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 92002C13CCD3 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 T6QvCmvaEBJu for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (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 46385C14792E for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4LtSw95QSFzDCbK; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:23:05 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAM70yxCLtSfv1dbZ7uNbUz8okBQov1-Zowb8kmGEcQvBzDW9JA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:23:04 +0200
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F0EBE2A1-37C5-4167-B4DF-44832C55A68D@tzi.org>
References: <165895438732.20608.10313704335293134135@ietfa.amsl.com> <C8854B74-73BB-494C-9BF5-92DECA9211F3@tzi.org> <CAM70yxCLtSfv1dbZ7uNbUz8okBQov1-Zowb8kmGEcQvBzDW9JA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/T5OQm3lBXWY5ngvmNZL2VLW-iJU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-01.txt
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 22:23:44 -0000

Hi Emile,

> On 27. Jul 2022, at 23:43, Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> However, there is still no way to represent an unspecified local date/time without a timezone

Indeed, this (“floating time”) is territory that SEDATE is not chartered to cover, so a SEDATE addition to time-tag won't either.

We already have floating (local-time) dates (tag 100), and I see no reason not to have ways to represent floating time values.

One question would be if these share the other characteristics of the timescale-referenced time values (tag 0, 1, 1001); if yes, we could add them to 1001, if not, we should go separate.

Grüße, Carsten