timestamp notation @gnupg.org
expires2011 at ymail.com
Sat Jun 18 14:22:48 CEST 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Saturday 18 June 2011 at 2:00:25 AM, in
<mid:BANLkTikEtkH_=vLBioeen0uozXVoYtJARQ at mail.gmail.com>, Jerome Baum
> 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).
Obviously, one refers to a one-second period of time and the other
refers to a whole day. It would refer to a whole day even without the
"/P1D" but that doesn't affect the point. In the examples "2011-06-16/P2D" or
"2011-06-13/P1W" the time period makes a difference.
> 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).
If the time period were to be included as an additional field without
altering the contents of the timestamp field, the latter would still
reveal exactly the information it reveals now about the signer's time
management behaviour. The value stored in the timestamp field would
need to be altered, so that the exact time of signing was not stored
but also so that existing apps didn't choke on it.
MFPA mailto:expires2011 at ymail.com
Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users