[LEAPSECS] A new use for Pre-1972 UTC

[Rob Seaman]

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> And that would be perfect, because then there is even less chance of

> you creating a random identifier that is identical to mine.

>

> Remember, this is a write-only timestamp, its only purpose is to

> provide time-changing bits.  What those bits mean does not matter.


There is already zero chance since the timestamp is attached to  
SHA-256.  If there is no requirement to provide a human readable  
timestamp, they should omit it.

Rather, as with the fields identifying the notary and document name,  
the timestamp is fodder for list handling.  It will allow sorting the  
list, and should allow grabbing specific dates from the list if they  
don't obscure it too much.  The key issue with dates (as opposed to  
epochs) is whether local or UT is more pertinent.  If these were human  
notaries, a strong argument could be made for local time since  
resolution at the level of a particular calendar date will often be  
required.

Actually, there is a failure of the current scheme in the document.  A  
notary is per country/state pair.  But about a third of the U.S.  
states and presumably many provinces in other countries are split by  
timezones.  A particular notary can therefore be expected to roam over  
more than one timezone.  Even if they demand a UTC timestamp, there is  
no likelihood that such an itinerant authority will accommodate this  
correctly.  For instance, imagine a Notary working out of the back of  
a Winnebago up and down an E/W highway.  Are they likely to reset the  
timezone appropriately on their laptop?

Rob