draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05.txt   draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06.txt 
CBOR Working Group M. Jones CBOR Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft A. Nadalin Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft Intended status: Standards Track A. Nadalin
Expires: January 17, 2021 J. Richter Expires: February 27, 2021 Independent
J. Richter
pdv Financial Software GmbH pdv Financial Software GmbH
July 16, 2020 August 26, 2020
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date
draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05 draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06
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 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 January 17, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 27, 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 5, line 20 skipping to change at page 5, line 20
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.
When using a calendar date for decision making, for example access When using a calendar date for decision making, for example access
control, it needs to be noted that since calendar dates do not control, it needs to be noted that since calendar dates do not
represent a specific point in time, the results of the evaluation can represent a specific point in time, the results of the evaluation can
differ depending upon where the decision is made. For instance, a differ depending upon where the decision is made. For instance, a
person may have reached their 21st birthday in Japan while person may have reached their 21st birthday in Japan while
simultaneously being a day short of their 21st birthday in Hawaii. simultaneously being a day short of their 21st birthday in Hawaii.
Similarly, it would be inappropriate to use only a date to trigger
certificate expiration, since a date corresponds to a range of times
worldwide, rather than a specific point in time that is independent
of geographic location.
4. References 4. References
4.1. Normative References 4.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
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: Henk Thanks to these people for reviews of the specification: Henk
Birkholz, Carsten Bormann, Thiago Macieira, Francesca Palombini, Birkholz, Carsten Bormann, Thiago Macieira, Francesca Palombini,
Michael Richardson, Jim Schaad, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and Dale Michael Richardson, Kyle Rose, Jim Schaad, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and
Worley. 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 ]]
-06
o Addressed SecDir review comments by Kyle Rose.
o Updated Tony Nadalin's affiliation and contact information.
-05 -05
o Incorporated additional suggestions by Carsten Bormann and Juergen o Incorporated additional suggestions by Carsten Bormann and Juergen
Schoenwaelder. Schoenwaelder.
-04 -04
o Addressed shepherd comments by Francesca Palombini. o Addressed shepherd comments by Francesca Palombini.
o Addressed additional review comments by Jim Schaad and Michael o Addressed additional review comments by Jim Schaad and Michael
skipping to change at page 7, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Michael B. Jones Michael B. Jones
Microsoft Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: https://self-issued.info/ URI: https://self-issued.info/
Anthony Nadalin Anthony Nadalin
Microsoft Independent
Email: tonynad@microsoft.com Email: nadalin@prodigy.net
Joerg Richter Joerg Richter
pdv Financial Software GmbH pdv Financial Software GmbH
Email: joerg.richter@pdv-fs.de Email: joerg.richter@pdv-fs.de
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/