IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A structured format for dates?

Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Tue, 23 August 2022 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5960C152597 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 01:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.963
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 jX5sky1OMJ76 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 01:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B14E1C152582 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 01:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1oQP8r-007Qq5-BO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:20:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:20:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1oQP8r-007Qq5-BO@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>) id 1oQP8q-007Qp4-0B for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:20:08 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>) id 1oQP8k-003MeF-EL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:20:07 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) (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 phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A63A4892AA; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:19:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 27N8JmEf053446 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:19:48 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: (from phk@localhost) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 27N8Jk08053445; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:19:46 GMT (envelope-from phk)
Message-Id: <202208230819.27N8Jk08053445@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <CAP9qbHUFuUZKxX3uyFU1D5uUbV-UbVWum=EPxrvmd3Viyk1kVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <8C9C4A5C-45DB-43C0-9769-2A7510854AB1@mnot.net> <5CE5343D-EECB-4F25-A3DB-F300E7708656@mnot.net> <A94FB409-7D37-4B5E-894C-33E8CC4986D4@mnot.net> <502151A9-050A-4A46-AA1E-FC54751EBDC1@mnot.net> <CAP9qbHUFuUZKxX3uyFU1D5uUbV-UbVWum=EPxrvmd3Viyk1kVQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <53443.1661242786.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:19:46 +0000
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@critter.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1oQP8k-003MeF-EL 21e05f740ad18149480b217641ebc8a5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: A structured format for dates?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/202208230819.27N8Jk08053445@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40338
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--------
Roberto Polli writes:
> Hi Mark et al,
>
> Il giorno lun 22 ago 2022 alle ore 04:29 Mark Nottingham
> <mnot@mnot.net> ha scritto:
> > Any further discussion about this? If not, I'll go ahead and incorporate the PR so we can see if it sticks.
>
> Just tried to get some more feedback on twitter on the topic
> https://twitter.com/ioggstream/status/1561752931417952258
> feel free to RT.

I think that is utterly bogus populism, the results of which should
be ignored, because nobody is going to read through the underlying
discussion before clicking.

Making timestamps human readable is pointless, because, statistically
speaking, no humans ever read these headers in the raw.

The necessary handling of leap-second is complex and a layer-violation.

And finally: it is much more expensive in terms of CPU power.

So pointless, complex and wasting energy:  What's not to like ?

Poul-Henning

PS: Did I read it right, did IETF finally, 20 years too late, realize
that protocol choices have energy implications ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email