draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01.txt   draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-02.txt 
CBOR Working Group M. Jones CBOR Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft A. Nadalin Internet-Draft A. Nadalin
Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft
Expires: December 11, 2020 J. Richter Expires: January 1, 2021 J. Richter
pdv Financial Software GmbH pdv Financial Software GmbH
June 9, 2020 June 30, 2020
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date
draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-02
Abstract Abstract
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data
format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small
code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the
need for version negotiation. need for version negotiation.
In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags. In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags.
RFC 7049 defines two tags for time: CBOR tag 0 (RFC 3339 date/time RFC 7049 defines two tags for time: CBOR tag 0 (RFC 3339 date/time
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 11, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags 2.1. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags
Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] provides The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] provides
for the interchange of structured data without a requirement for a for the interchange of structured data without a requirement for a
pre-agreed schema. RFC 7049 defines a basic set of data types, as pre-agreed schema. RFC 7049 defines a basic set of data types, as
well as a tagging mechanism that enables extending the set of data well as a tagging mechanism that enables extending the set of data
types supported via an IANA registry. types supported via an IANA registry.
This specification defines a CBOR tag for a text string representing This specification defines a CBOR tag for a text string representing
a date but not a time. The tagged text string is represented as a date without a time. The tagged text string is represented as
specified by the RFC 3339 [RFC3339] "full-date" production. specified by the RFC 3339 [RFC3339] "full-date" production.
This specification also defines a CBOR tag for an integer This specification also defines a CBOR tag for an integer
representing a date but not a time. The tagged integer is an representing a date without a time. The tagged integer is an
unsigned or negative value indicating the number of days since the unsigned or negative value indicating the number of days since the
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition [POSIX.1] epoch date 1970-01-01. As an IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition [POSIX.1] epoch date 1970-01-01. As an
implementation note, this value has a constant offset from the implementation note, this value has a constant offset from the
Modified Julian Date value (which is defined by the Smithsonian Modified Julian Date value (which is defined by the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory as the number of days since November 17, Astrophysical Observatory as the number of days since November 17,
1858); this value is the Modified Julian Date minus 40,587. 1858); this value is the Modified Julian Date minus 40,587.
Note that since both tags are for dates without times, time zones and
leap seconds are not applicable to these values.
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions 1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. IANA Considerations 2. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 3, line 40 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
o Reference: [[ this specification ]] o Reference: [[ this specification ]]
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The security considerations of RFC 7049 apply; the tags introduced The security considerations of RFC 7049 apply; the tags introduced
here are not expected to raise security considerations beyond those. here are not expected to raise security considerations beyond those.
A date, of course, has significant security considerations; these A date, of course, has significant security considerations; these
include the exploitation of ambiguities where the date is security include the exploitation of ambiguities where the date is security
relevant or where the date is used in access control decisions. relevant or where the date is used in access control decisions.
However, typically times will also be used when making access control
decisions, rather than dates without times.
4. References 4. References
4.1. Normative References 4.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition, 2013, IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition, 2013,
<http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/ <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/
V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15>. V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15>.
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
Thanks to Carsten Bormann for supporting creation of this Thanks to Carsten Bormann for supporting creation of this
specification. Parts of the explanatory text in this specification specification. Parts of the explanatory text in this specification
come from draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag-02. come from draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag-02.
Thanks to these people for reviews of the specification: Carsten
Bormann, Jim Schaad, and Dale Worley.
Document History Document History
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]] [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
-02
o Addressed working group last call comments, including stating that
time zones are not applicable to these values.
-01 -01
o Changed "positive or negative" to "unsigned or negative". o Changed "positive or negative" to "unsigned or negative".
o Added an implementation note about the relationship to Modified o Added an implementation note about the relationship to Modified
Julian Dates. Julian Dates.
-00 -00
o Initial working group version based on draft-jones-cbor-date- o Initial working group version based on draft-jones-cbor-date-
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
8 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/