Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag for RFC 3339 full-date values

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joerg,

I’m sorry we didn’t handle your requests properly.
Let’s try to fix this now.

> On 2020-03-04, at 08:42, Richter, Jörg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> The need for a date (not time) tag has come up before; I just can’t remember where.
> 
> One year ago I sent a proposal für a date tag [1].
> So far it has not made it into the overview of the assigned CBOR-tags [2].
> 
> I would very much appreciate if the suggested tag number is used for the date-tag, since we already use it internally.

What I like about Mike’s draft is that he references RFC 3339, which already is an established specification for how to write dates textually.  For that half of the proposal, I don’t think there is a technical difference with your proposal (except that Mike suggested a different tag number).  Beyond Mike’s draft, we would need to decide that we like to use the same tag with an epoch-based numeric date.  I think this is OK; it just requires users of the tag to specify which of the internal structures (or both) they would accept.  Note that we are running into the same issue with tag 1 (as used in EAT in the RATS WG), so that may help accepting that this is a normal thing to so.

> What is missing for the suggested tag numbers to be assigned?

I think we just have to make the decision to spend the 1+1 (short) tag.
That becomes somewhat easier with including the numeric date, because that is indeed quite compact and merits a short tag.

> Btw. I have another proposal for currencies and money amounts at [3] whose tags were not assigned either.

Let’s get to that, too, right after we are done with the date tag.

Grüße, Carsten


> - Jörg
> 
> [1] https://j-richter.github.io/CBOR/date.html
> [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml
> [3] https://j-richter.github.io/CBOR/currency.html
>