IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology] Do we really need to define timestamps? (#80)

Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com> Fri, 08 June 2018 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03ED130EA3 for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 06:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 ifJg2nto78jB for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 06:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211D4124C04 for <sacm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 06:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 06:00:57 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1528462857; bh=dqjxHqILJPyfoiPJXiV9V5rrt4gL10CTRuQDjfgl6ho=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=cZj64gxXK5OL2JZDReWgaxySaCpHV4h6ISSOXBvxgSfWLyf+j+ry+nOavXfrZpc2j WWS5sTcViIyigDMnHpWjWAdrz42zPE1tn7ClEyRJaxB+vk8ladWhh1gZCenO3Pcfdc 228BLPBC0yeEsrdiFWXQnyD9a++XYDeH+mm7OIMY=
From: Henk Birkholz <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology <reply+00a6c4d1895278b99504f90e373686a05e4450ef3cfd736d92cf000000011732400992a169ce10bcf9e5@reply.github.com>
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology <draft-ietf-sacm-terminology@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/80/395753471@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/80@github.com>
References: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/80@github.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b1a7e09772c7_233e3fd80b24af7c1193b1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: henkbirkholz
X-GitHub-Recipient: sacm
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: sacm@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/qL_SjB_-LcvLAyvg207vM3wyrRU>
Subject: Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology] Do we really need to define timestamps? (#80)
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 13:01:01 -0000

Maybe this is less about the actual definition of a timestamp, but its semantics and application in SACM. In this case, I think we can actually do a "one-liner" definition that is a quote from a reference and than highlight a timestamp's characteristics and qualities wrt to evaluation and correlation tasks in SACM work-flows via expositional text in the terminology draft? 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/80#issuecomment-395753471

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email