I don’t really see a reason to not use the issue tracker for this. Post it to the issue tracker w/ a reasonable description and then wait to see if anybody comments. If nobody comments, tag it as “discussed”. When it gets added to the spec, it gets closed.
John
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Barnum, Sean D. <> wrote:
>
> I am not against quick (though complete) discussion and decisions being made but they MUST be tied to an issue with appropriate comments as John suggests here.
>
> sean
>
>
>
>
> On 11/23/15, 9:40 AM, " on behalf of Wunder, John A." < on behalf of > wrote:
>
>> Yep! Given the restrictions on RF3339 (it’s a more tightly defined format) my preference is to that. As a bonus, we’ll also be compatible with ISO 8601. Win-win.
>>
>> So how about we alter your previous statement to:
>>
>> "Anyone with a good argument *against* RFC3339+UTC+milliseconds speak
>> up now. If there's no compelling argument against, then please let's
>> move on.”
>>
>> How would we encode decisions like this? I would probably have added an issue with a comment.
>>
>> John
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Trey Darley <> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23.11.2015 13:27:00, Wunder, John A. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> RFC3339 is a “profile" of ISO8601: all RFC3339 timestamps are
>>>> ISO8601 timestamps, but not all ISO8601 timestamps are RFC3339
>>>> timestamps.
>>>>
>>>> See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/522251/whats-the-difference-between-iso-8601-and-rfc-3339-date-formats
>>>>
>>>
>>> Precisely! John, you and I were obviously referencing the same sources. ^_^
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Trey
>>> --
>>> Trey Darley
>>> Senior Security Engineer
>>> 4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430
>>> Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
>>> www.soltra.com
>>> --
>>> "No matter how hard you try, you can't make a baby in much less than 9
>>> months. Trying to speed this up *might* make it slower, but it won't
>>> make it happen any quicker." --RFC 1925
>>
