ietf-smime
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-housley-binarytime-00.txt

2004-09-01 09:41:50

Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> writes:

The document states the rationale.  No conversion to operating system
representation and it is smaller.  In what way do you find it limiting?

It doesn't go beyond 2038, whereas UTCTime at least goes to 2050.

The proposal isn't so much limiting as... bizarre.  The ASN.1 time formats
have been around forever. everything supports them, and this proposal is for a
format that isn't even as "flexible" as the not-very-flexible UTCTime.  What
real problem is this addressing?  Why a time_t?  Why not a 64-bit time to keep
the Java guys happy?  Or the Windows nanoseconds-since-1600 time?  Or the
Macintosh seconds-since 1904?  You could make it a choice, so no-one would
feel left out, with at least one of the choices being an identified-by-OID
value so everyone could add their own favourite oddball format...

Peter.