On Jan 23, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Tobias Markmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Matt Miller > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> To be clear, 'stamp' is the equivalent of 'seconds', in absolute terms. >> The recipient wouldn't deduct 'seconds' from 'stamp' to get the ultimate >> result. >> > > Yes...if both present then on the system initially sending the stanza, > stamp = now() - seconds. No deductions needed if 'stamp' is present. > >> >> Also, would 'stamp' always be in terms of UTC, or are other offsets >> permitted? I can see pros and cons for both sides of that fence. >> > > I think the value of 'stamp' would be according to XEP-0082, which allows > for optional time zone specifier at the end (just 'Z' at the end meaning > UTC). > > Sure, but there are potential privacy concerns here. Sending UTC always does not give away my (extremely broad) geographical location, while including the timezone offset does. I am not suggesting we force this 'stamp' to always be UTC. Personally, I think I might like the timezone offset to be included (my last is 3 hours ago because it's the middle of the night for me compared to you"). What I am suggesting is adding a note somewhere about the concern. - m&m Matthew A. Miller < http://goo.gl/LK55L >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
