Andrew Deason <[email protected]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I >> think we should be more wordy about it: > 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. > Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have > this to say about it in RFC 5905: > In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of > era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero. It should > be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1 > January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all > eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been > lost. Yeah, that's similar in intention to my note. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
