- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:46:26 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-webpayments@w3.org
On 2014-02-11 02:14, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 02/08/2014 12:29 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: >>> Dates don't suffice, true... but what about ISO 8601 datetimes that >>> have nanosecond precision? >> >> I wouldn't go there because it could be (by some people) called a >> "kludge" and become a hurdle in a standardization process. > > Hmm, I'd like to hear the argument of why they're a kludge. Many nonce > systems utilize an incrementing counter, I don't see why this mechanism > would be any different. > >> Anyway, it is actually a bit nice to have a separate >> transaction/message ID which for example could be strictly >> sequential. The syntax should preferably be limited to Base64. > > I don't see how a sequentially incrementing transaction / message ID > would be different from a nano-second precise datetime value. As I wrote, from a strict technical point of view this is entirely correct. The difference as I see it is that a DateTime says "when" while a MessageID uniquely identifies the actual message from the sender's perspective like for example a PO number. Nanosecond time-stamps are (de-facto) non-standard which is another possible objection to the current scheme. Anders > > -- manu >
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 04:46:59 UTC