Re: [Emailcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-03

[Julien ÉLIE <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

>> Message-ID: <t9d3rt$29g$[e-mail]>
>> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:27:41 -0000 (UTC)
>> Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:27:41 -0000 (UTC)
> 
> So, just to be sure I understand, in the first case "-0000" is
> being used for "unknown for the actual sender/ originator/
> injector" above, with "(UTC)" the time as supplied by the
> Server.  Correct?

Yes, exactly, with "(UTC)" being a comment as CFWS at the end of the 
header field.  This way, it just means that time is given in UTC but the 
local time for the sender/injector is not necessarily the same.
Contrary to "+0000" which would have meant the local time is the same, 
and the sender/injector doesn't mind disclosing that information.

(The INN news server has a parameter, localtime in readers.conf, false 
by default, to configure that behaviour.)



> (2) Should "UT" be taken off the "obs-*" list and added back
> into valid current syntax to allow systems to be clear about
> what is intended, rather than having to guess at the intended
> semantics of "+0000" and "-0000".  I still feel that might be a
> good idea, but I'm not seeing much traction for it.

I was under the impression that the intended semantics was clear in RFC 
5322...  I wouldn't change the list of obsolete time zones.



> (3) Recommendations about what time zones should be chosen for a
> given message, either in the "Date:" header field or in the
> various other fields, notably trace fields, in which time-stamps
> are applied and/or what receiving systems should do about them.
> That seems to be an A/S subject, not a 5322bis/5321bis one.
> Whether we have anything useful to say is another matter.

Maybe a couple of sentences could be added, to recommend either to use 
"-0000" if the real local time zone should not be disclosed, and 
otherwise to use the local time zone including "+0000" which means the 
local time zone matches UTC.  If possible, this behaviour should be 
configurable by the user or administrator.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Ibi etsi uis te non esse sed es ibi. »