timestamp notation @gnupg.org

Jerome Baum jerome at jeromebaum.com
Sat Jun 18 03:00:25 CEST 2011

> Consider these two formats:-
> (A)      Signature made 06/17/11 23:21:17
> (B)      Signature made 06/17/11
> A signature that contained only the information for (B) would reveal
> less about the signer's behaviour than a signature containing the
> information for (A).
> Whether that's possible as an option is another question, if the date
> is stored in the signature packet as seconds since epoch.

Which was my point about adding a resolution/interval. There's a
difference between "2011-06-17 00:00:00" and "2011-06-17/P1D" (both
technically, and in court).

Leaving my hands off the "timestamp-only" part of the thread, does
anyone have objections to "timestamp-interval" in the ISO 8601
interval format? In my head, it would be a non-critical field (as it
doesn't change the meaning of the signature, only the accuracy of the
timestamp field).


Jerome Baum
tel +49-1578-8434336
email jerome at jeromebaum.com
web www.jeromebaum.com
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list