That assumes that people are checking and following the issue tracker which is just not always the case.
Thanks,
Bret
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
On Nov 23, 2015, at 13:20, Wunder, John A. <> wrote:
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.JohnOn 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.seanOn 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 speakup now. If there's no compelling argument against, then please let'smove on.”How would we encode decisions like this? I would probably have added an issue with a comment.JohnOn 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 areISO8601 timestamps, but not all ISO8601 timestamps are RFC3339timestamps.See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/522251/whats-the-difference-between-iso-8601-and-rfc-3339-date-formatsPrecisely! John, you and I were obviously referencing the same sources. ^_^-- Cheers,Trey--Trey DarleySenior Security Engineer4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Companywww.soltra.com--"No matter how hard you try, you can't make a baby in much less than 9months. Trying to speed this up *might* make it slower, but it won'tmake it happen any quicker." --RFC 1925
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
