[AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02

[Russ Allbery]

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
>> think we should be more wordy about it:

> Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some of
> this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, though.

Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates that
can currently be handled with CIFS.

> Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have
> this to say about it in RFC 5905:

>     In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
>     era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.  It should
>     be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1
>     January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all
>     eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been
>     lost.

Yeah, that's similar in intention to my note.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>