On Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Mark Andrews wrote: > Would something like this be better? Do you need a UTC after the > timestamp. [...] > ; Created: 20100429025050 (Thu Apr 29 12:50:50 2010)
Even though it's just a comment, it would be nice for it not to be ambiguous. As a comment, the raw value isn't very parsable, the descriptive version itself would probably be fine if it was either always in UTC and included a UTC suffix to make it obvious, or if relativized to the localtime included that timezone as a suffix. > Note: now + delta is timezone agnostic. Yes, but I was tentively planning on rotating zone keys once a month, and to simplify that making the 1st of the month the cutoff. It's easy to say "the 1st of next month" in an absolute fashion, but in a delta fashion you'd need to worry about how many days each month has. There's probably a better implentation anyway, we're still in the early prototyping phase. > From dnssec-signzone [...] > 20000530144500 denotes 14:45:00 UTC on May 30th, 2000. Perhaps this same example/clarification could be added to the man pages for dnssec-keygen and dnssec-settime under the "TIMING OPTIONS" section? That's the documentation I was reviewing while looking into this. Thanks... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
