>> 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.
Right. Which is why I wrote "2011-06-17 00:00:00" -- there are multiple interpretations of "2011-06-17", and e.g. ISO 8601 takes it to be the instant at the start of the day. "2011-06-17/P1D" is unambiguous (especially if we specify "the value is an ISO 8601 interval"). > 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. Exactly. I see it as two parts: 1. Add a notation for timestamp-interval. This makes the protocol more flexible. 2. Using # 1, we can then change application code to make the implementation more flexible. e.g.: Add an option to round down to the start of the day and set timestamp-interval to "<today>/P1D". -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-8434336 email jer...@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 _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
