IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 15 April 2021 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 10DEA3A22CC for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MWLtAsO1Fm_B for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B8083A22C6 for <saag@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dc27d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.194.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FLj392GnKzyZ5; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:51:33 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3BBACC35-411D-4108-B436-2BA7CC47550F@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:51:32 +0200
Cc: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>, Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@nightwatchcybersecurity.com>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 640191092.761304-3f1fd1d60a7375f21d5b04c1ae97c229
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AB5EF62B-011E-4991-94D4-A5B6F3E9DD18@tzi.org>
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com> <ADC7ED48-8D36-41C0-9AD5-3154419216C7@gmail.com> <1618493778732.39296@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <3BBACC35-411D-4108-B436-2BA7CC47550F@akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/V7vAjchTJKDJo0rbqfGQ0kZfBrY>
Subject: Re: [saag] 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:51:40 -0000

On 2021-04-15, at 16:21, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps asking the NTP folks for views?

Not needed.

We are talking about security.txt, and the question was whether this text-based format should use RFC 3339 or RFC 5322.  The answer is that the latter is a legacy format with a ton of problems, and RFC 3339 (preferably simply with UTC time) is the answer.

There are great applications for POSIX times (NTP, RFC 8949 tag 0/1), MJDs (RFC 8943), etc., but all this is not needed for the bog-standard date/times needed for security.txt.  Leap seconds are irrelevant for this, as are Julian Dates, and probably even time zones (if we assume a minimum level of skill on the side of the people creating security.txt files).

Grüße, Carsten

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email