Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 22:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95273A12EF; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OShrCEmTseUf; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [98.153.82.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D77A3A12E4; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RXTS9CKTSW00HE4N@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1618352452; bh=VyPYKdRldGKqG/AjXCbPNj06MVVXTcRLbfTXjBuCOyo=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=EwlvaTO55Z4sus+8wU/r81nZsgu6zoTfrDFYioKmkPugHrkOXSfNBU2kl0SEJf2Vj BeL4T0tlKfrSg+HtzU/mpR2jUiQkBfZsxA4YOx0DfpM5tiCCp/pYGEa3k2UMUbuCKe jX5679aPOIb4cUwtVKVmZPxv7zQ1RxE6dGMMZWjM=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RXTM8LE0RK0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@nightwatchcybersecurity.com>, art@ietf.org, saag@ietf.org
Message-id: <01RXTS9APXIU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:17:45 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:30:21 -0700" <901F4345-91B6-42CA-9F68-27DB4C539F3D@vpnc.org>
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com> <901F4345-91B6-42CA-9F68-27DB4C539F3D@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/TAo46BXg5gneVr3O7FpP-hcSyHM>
Subject: Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 22:26:02 -0000
> On 13 Apr 2021, at 11:43, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Is there a preference for Internet drafts/RFCs regarding the specific > > data/time format to be used? > > > > Right now we are referencing RFC 5322, but there has been feedback > > from multiple people that the ISO 8601 format is easier to parse. This > > is in regards to the section 3.5.5 of "draft-foudil-securitytxt-11" > > that I am working on: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foudil-securitytxt-11#section-3.5.4 > > > > The options I am asking about are the following: > > - RFC 3339 (a profile of ISO 8601) > > Example: 2021-04-13T06:50:53-07:00 > > > > - RFC 5322, section 3.3 > > Example: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:50:53 -0700 > Given that the date in that section of that draft is meant to be machine > parsed, choosing RFC 5322 (neé 822) date formats is a particularly bad > idea, given the existence of RFC 3339. Whenever machine parsing enters the picture the other syntax that should be considered is integer milliseconds since epoch. (This syntax is increasingly popular in the schemata I encounter.) However, I think there's also a need for this to be readable. RFC 3339 seems like the right balance to me. Ned
- [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Yakov Shafranovich
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Eliot Lear (elear)
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Tim Bray
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Nico Williams
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Nico Williams
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Paul Hoffman
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Nico Williams
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… John C Klensin
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Randy Bush
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Ned Freed
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Michael Douglass
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Dave Crocker
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Stian Soiland-Reyes
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Alan DeKok
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Tony Finch
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… heather flanagan
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… tom petch
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Steve Allen
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… heather flanagan
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Stian Soiland-Reyes
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Henry Story
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Peter Gutmann
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Salz, Rich
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Tony Finch
- Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Steve Allen
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Mark Baushke (ietf)
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Metapolymath Majordomo
- Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 53… Yakov Shafranovich