Re: [nm-wg] standard timestamp format

[Dan Gunter <dkgunter@lbl.gov>]

I'm not sure that a _single_ standard timestamp format is required; what 
I would like to see is a minimal set of timestamp formats that will 
satisfy everyone, with rules for converting between them explicitly 
documented somewhere. I'm not sure *GGF* is the right place for this, 
ultimately, but I don't see any harm in proposing something in this 
context even if it just ends up becoming input into another standards 
body down the line.

I don't want to sidetrack NM-WG, but given that we need to exchange 
timestamps and we've already had discussions on this, it looks like 
we're already sidetracked, and waiting for another WG to form and finish 
just to document this would be a real bump in the road. Not documenting 
what decisions we make seems like a waste of a potentially more broadly 
useful set of discussions and decisions.

Therefore, I would propose that a few people interested in this get 
together enough spare time to write a short-and-sweet document about the 
timestamp formats we can agree on. AFAIK, these are currently:

- NTP seconds (16 bytes, encoded either "raw", or for XML as hex or 
decimal numbers)
- ISO8601 (restricted to YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.ff..fZ variation)

[ Note: I would propose that accuracy and resolution representation be 
treated as optional extensions to be specified at some later date. As 
much as I'd like to include these in any documentation we produce, they 
tend to be controversial, and specifying these in a standard way is not 
crucial to moving forward. ]

Once this document is done, it could be reviewed by the group as a whole 
and, if found satisfactory, thrown into the abyss of GGF document 
approval. Whether or not final approval is given, our Web Services will 
have some concrete, documented, agreement to go on for the timestamp at 
least.

The documents cited below could provide background material, but I think 
what we need is much simpler, smaller, and easier to agree on.

-Dan

Brian Tierney wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Richard mentioned that the issue of a standard timestamp has come up in  
> Mark/Paul's implementation work.
>
> There were a couple of documents on this a few years ago:
>
> http://www-didc.lbl.gov/GGF-PERF/GMA-WG/papers/GWD-GP-10-1.pdf
> and
> http://www.cs.tcd.ie/coghlan/meta/datagrid/PDPTAv7_2.pdf
>
>
> I asked Steve Tueke what the WS-RF solution to timestamps is, and he  
> said that they have not yet found a critical need for a standard  
> timestamp.
>
> Im not sure of the NM-WG is the right place for this, but I'd like to  
> see the above document
> standardized. Other thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> -------------------
>   Brian L. Tierney,   Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
>   1 Cyclotron Rd.  MS: 50B-2239,  Berkeley, CA  94720
>   tel: 510-486-7381    fax: 510-495-2998   efax:  240-332-4065
>   bltierney@lbl.gov   http://www-didc.lbl.gov/~tierney
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> ------------------