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

[Andrew Deason]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> > 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.

Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net