Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
41 lines (35 loc) · 2.01 KB

2022-10-04.md

File metadata and controls

41 lines (35 loc) · 2.01 KB
Raw

To: [email protected] Reply-to: [email protected] CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Two specifications on timestamps nearing WGLC

In the SEDATE and CBOR working groups, two loosely related specifications about timestamp formats for the Internet are being readied:

  • SEDATE WG: draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended defines the "Internet Extended Date/Time Formmt" (IXDTF), an extension to the widely used text-based RFC 3339 format that allows the addition of time-zone hints and other additional information (e.g., a preferred calendar format). This has been discussed with communities that already have some form of these format extensions in use and is intended as the specification that provides a common standard for these. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-06.html

  • CBOR WG: draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag defines a few CBOR tags for timestamps, durations, and periods of time, going beyond the capabilities of the existing CBOR tags 0 (RFC3339) and 1 (POSIX time). This specification allows the transport of SEDATE extensions in a CBOR time tag. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-02.html

One item that is of particular interest to the wider community this note addresses: We found an interoperability problem with the way that RFC 3339 handles timestamps that do not want to provide a hint about time zone offsets. As a remedy, the IXDTF spec therefore proposes to update RFC 3339. The need for this was a surprise for many of us, and a charter adjustment may be needed for the SEDATE WG for this update to go forward.

Some of the details in the CBOR time tag may be of interest to the NTP and TICTOC WGs, which are therefore also CCed.

Please reply to [email protected] for wider comments (e.g., "this is not the right way of doing this"), and to [email protected] or [email protected] for more detailed comments specific to one of the specifications. (The CBOR WG will have a chance to discuss any early input during its 2022-10-05 interim today.)