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

Hi,

During the NTP WG session this morning, there was a suggestion for adding
another time format
for NTPv5 (next version) of "local time" - there was rough consensus that
this was a useful idea.
FYI - There will probably be an NTP draft on this idea soon.

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*

*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
<blueroofmusic@gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:23 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>