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

[Jeffrey Altman]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/8/2011 4:42 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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).

I don't have a strong feeling about the epoch.  I am fine with negative
timestamp values.



--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQFRfAAoJENxm1CNJffh41zQH/1a3yikgeEdDGPesg+i901Bu
vj/9ivedJ558iUUp4IuR4lC+JB236gh9AH0Mb5lt3FTPkfkX7nM+K9ZH5zDHFhSO
O+6TPvMtogJZi94yB7O/1M0cWy+D2NbY+glWBtZCzzOYf1xOyrgSozr+D6xwykS/
pVE8NpJ4zApX/94d1pNWXa+wIRSQO1RTJ2nQR8hLCMGUFaQapwKmpAPKhglKJFFH
Jl9gvt9Pb5eCFiqq5VO+ps49Ny8lCYL/49HMeF1jGSJyWs8cDJklKq3BFCn5ansd
HzN0ksSlJC6YRlj12EtacdoG0hrym2+BNCMNh2MdPduR24av5D7Aiur0b2rrWb4=
=47yu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430--