Re: #16 [*] EPOCH (section 5.1.2)

Sam Hartman <[email protected]> Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:12:11 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.kink
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

>>>>> "KAMADA" == KAMADA Ken'ichi <[email protected]> writes:

    >> #16 [*] EPOCH (section 5.1.2)
    >> 
    >> Perhaps you need a description of the time stamp?  I recall
    >> there being such a description in draft-housley-binarytime-xx.
    >> (Sam Hartman)

    KAMADA> The current draft specifies it as "the standard posix four
    KAMADA> octet time stamp".  Is describing in KINK preferred to
    KAMADA> referring POSIX?

Probably.  At least I don't think Russ's draft ended up referring to
Posix.

I actually don't care either wy so long as the format is clearly
specified.  Doing that by reference or by value is fine.