--- 1/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01.txt 2020-06-30 18:13:09.953273643 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-02.txt 2020-06-30 18:13:09.969274055 -0700 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ CBOR Working Group M. Jones Internet-Draft A. Nadalin Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft -Expires: December 11, 2020 J. Richter +Expires: January 1, 2021 J. Richter pdv Financial Software GmbH - June 9, 2020 + June 30, 2020 Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date - draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 + draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-02 Abstract The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need for version negotiation. 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 @@ -35,21 +35,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -61,47 +61,50 @@ Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] provides for the interchange of structured data without a requirement for a 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 types supported via an IANA registry. 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. 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 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 Modified Julian Date value (which is defined by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory as the number of days since November 17, 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 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. IANA Considerations @@ -121,23 +124,24 @@ o Reference: [[ this specification ]] 3. Security Considerations The security considerations of RFC 7049 apply; the tags introduced here are not expected to raise security considerations beyond those. A date, of course, has significant security considerations; these include the exploitation of ambiguities where the date is security 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 - 4.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, . @@ -160,24 +164,32 @@ IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition, 2013, . Acknowledgements Thanks to Carsten Bormann for supporting creation of this specification. Parts of the explanatory text in this specification 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 [[ 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 o Changed "positive or negative" to "unsigned or negative". o Added an implementation note about the relationship to Modified Julian Dates. -00 o Initial working group version based on draft-jones-cbor-date-