IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 13 April 2021 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 BC89E3A246B; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL=1.31, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 eZG5V0TbQ_8o; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 A34483A2469; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.51] (76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 13DJUo0I026029 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:30:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70] claimed to be [10.32.60.51]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Yakov Shafranovich" <yakov@nightwatchcybersecurity.com>
Cc: saag@ietf.org, art@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:30:21 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <901F4345-91B6-42CA-9F68-27DB4C539F3D@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/ZgABtprKrSm18fqK2XZ_G2aLR28>
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: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:30:28 -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.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email