Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-04.txt

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> My only remaining concern at this point is whether there should be a clause that says decoders may discard nested clock quality attributes within the Uncertainty and Guarantee attributes. My decoder will discard them regardless of what the RFC says, but I guess that doesn't matter to anyone much while it remains closed-source.

You can always pretend to not understand them — they are elective...
(But we could make this more explicit.)

> What about the ability to encode a local time having an unspecified time zone? The C++ std::chrono::local_time duration is computed from the date time of day the same way as std::chrono::sys_time (POSIX), except that the time zone is unspecified instead of UTC. All that would be needed is a "Local" time scale to be added to the time scale registry. I already understand that you want to launch the time tag RFC with only the UTC and TAI time scales for now.

As was discussed over in SEDATE as well, there even are some noises that NTPv5 might adopt such a locally defined time scale (naysayers notwithstanding that argue that NTP can only be used internet-wide where such a locally defined time scale would not apply).

Grüße, Carsten