timestamp notation @gnupg.org

[MFPA]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Saturday 18 June 2011 at 2:00:25 AM, in
<mid:BANLkTikEtkH_=vLBioeen0uozXVoYtJARQ at mail.gmail.com>, Jerome Baum
wrote:


> 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).

> Thoughts?

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.

- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:expires2011 at ymail.com

Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE7BAEBCgClBQJN/JienhSAAAAAAEAAVXNpZ25pbmdfa2V5X0lEIHNpZ25pbmdf
a2V5X0ZpbmdlcnByaW50IEAgIE1hc3Rlcl9rZXlfRmluZ2VycHJpbnQgQThBOTBC
OEVBRDBDNkU2OSBCQTIzOUI0NjgxRjFFRjk1MThFNkJENDY0NDdFQ0EwMyBAIEJB
MjM5QjQ2ODFGMUVGOTUxOEU2QkQ0NjQ0N0VDQTAzAAoJEKipC46tDG5p8RMD/jIq
XFwIsTZePRcLgM37watk305GVcb+xi0U/E7hGtO/+fCo3m4NmTLL+EMRe59ZoFJN
t2hYHBY3Y2r323eKwG6Y5r2sRbGAwXqXMgwb7QTJ/n0yd7NVwUrvUhki6RGuPwTj
6XDthrnVUj7e46AvYB51fdAj0KcEtzmpVePJFW8Z
=DbC6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----