Subject: RE: Lets Standardize Time Representation Formats!!!: WAS Re: New TSTTime definition

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 01:34:24 (NZST)

"Manger, James" <[email-masked]> writes:

>GeneralizedTime is a basic ASN.1 type for representing time and already 
>supports fractions of seconds.  For example "19851106210627.3Z" is a valid
>value.  SO WHY NOT USE IT!

Precisely (I've been trying to refrain from posting a "Why are people trying
to invent a gratuitously incompatible time format when a perfectly good[0]
one already exists?" rant).  There's already a standard, well-defined way to 
represent time values, why invent another one?

Peter.

[0] Well, slightly clunky but adequate.  OTOH the "kludge a REAL using a bunch
    of INTEGER's" approach is even uglier.

---

From: "tog" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 08:05:56 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:34 AM
Subject: RE: Lets Standardize Time Representation Formats!!!: WAS Re: New
TSTTime definition

> represent time values, why invent another one?

becuase there is nothing here except the time data. If we want an
accompanying sense of credibility for the timedata then ASN.1 would needs a
signedTime format. The actual representation of the timedata is simple, its
what is mandated with it to prove its credibility that's the question here.

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:55:40 -0400

>>>>> "tog" == tog  <[email-masked]> writes:

 >> good[0] one already exists?" rant).  There's already a standard,
 >> well-defined way to

 tog> becuase there is nothing here except the time data. If we want
 tog> an accompanying sense of credibility for the timedata then ASN.1
 tog> would needs a signedTime format. The actual representation of
 tog> the timedata is simple, its what is mandated with it to prove
 tog> its credibility that's the question here.

Exactly.  You do need to take an unsigned time format and apply a
signature to it.  That isn't the issue.

The issue is: why does the TSTTime consist of GeneralizedTime plus
more stuff, when that additional stuff merely duplicates in a
confusing way what you can already represent with GeneralizedTime?

	paul

---

From: "tog" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:55:49 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Lets Standardize Time Representation Formats!!!: WAS Re: New
TSTTime definition

> confusing way what you can already represent with GeneralizedTime?

Quite simply becuase I have no reason to believe that the timedata in the
TST is any good.