Add GeneralizedTime

[DarkaMaul]

Fixes #491

/cc @woodruffw

[DarkaMaul]

I've used a nanoseconds precision for the fractional time ( from 1 to 10^9) but I can't find a reference saying that the value is bounded (or not).

From T-REC-X.680-202102-I!!PDF-E.pdf, it seems the precision is arbitrary

2) a string representing the time of day to an accuracy of one hour, one minute, one second, or
fractions of a second (to any degree of accuracy), using either comma or full stop as the decimal sign (as
specified in ISO 8601, 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 – Basic format); optionally followed by:

And the X.690-0207 spec only says that the second is required:

11.7.2 The seconds element shall always be present. 

However, the Quick ASN1 reference uses a 3 digit representation for the floating part.

What would be the best option here?

[alex]

Grumble. Nanosecond precision is fine. But this also means the prohibition on leading 0s is wrong, right?

…

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 8:19 AM dm ***@***.***> wrote: I've used a nanoseconds precision for the fractional time ( from 1 to 10^9) but I can't find a reference saying that the value is bounded (or not). From T-REC-X.680-202102-I!!PDF-E.pdf <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680-202102-I>, it seems the precision is arbitrary 2) a string representing the time of day to an accuracy of one hour, one minute, one second, or fractions of a second (to any degree of accuracy), using either comma or full stop as the decimal sign (as specified in ISO 8601, 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 – Basic format); optionally followed by: And the X.690-0207 spec only says that the second is required: 11.7.2 The seconds element shall always be present. However, the Quick ASN1 reference <https://www.oss.com/asn1/resources/asn1-made-simple/asn1-quick-reference/generalizedtime.html> uses a 3 digit representation for the floating part. What would be the best option here? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#492 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAAGBCFKLSONPCZY5IQESTZ5IZLJAVCNFSM6AAAAABQS5DC5CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMZXGYZTGNRRGQ> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

[DarkaMaul]

Grumble. Nanosecond precision is fine. But this also means the prohibition on leading 0s is wrong, right?

I think this one is still valid as it stems from :

11.7.3 The fractional-seconds elements, if present, shall omit all trailing zeros; if the elements correspond to 0, they
shall be wholly omitted, and the decimal point element also shall be omitted. 

[alex]

Trailing and leading zeros are the opposite :-)

…

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 9:04 AM dm ***@***.***> wrote: Grumble. Nanosecond precision is fine. But this also means the prohibition on leading 0s is wrong, right? I think this one is still valid as it stems from : 11.7.3 The fractional-seconds elements, if present, shall omit all trailing zeros; if the elements correspond to 0, they shall be wholly omitted, and the decimal point element also shall be omitted. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

[DarkaMaul]

Trailing and leading zeros are the opposite :-)
😮‍💨 Yes indeed - let me update the PR ...

[alex]

Apologies in advance, but For simplicity of review, I think pulling the "rename GeneralizedTime" into its own PR probably is the best path.

[alex]

Should DateTime just have an optional nanoseconds field?

[alex]

Thoughts here?

[woodruffw]

Whoops, missed this earlier. I don't have a super strong opinion -- I think @DarkaMaul put the nanos on GeneralizedTime since UTCTime has no fractional time support at all, so having it on the top-level DateTime used by both seems (slightly) off.

OTOH having it on GeneralizedTime also seems slightly off, since it's now (DateTime, nanos). So I'm happy to move if you'd prefer.

[alex]

Eh, let's get the docs right on the generalized tiem strcut and that'll be good enough. (See my other comment)

[alex]

One last open question

[alex]

Thoughts here?

[alex]

This comment should be updated to just describe the type, not reference an issue about how things used to be.

[woodruffw]

Done!

[alex]

Eh, let's get the docs right on the generalized tiem strcut and that'll be good enough. (See my other comment)