From owner-cvs-all Thu Jan 14 23:14:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA02798 for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:14:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (203-96-92-3.ipnets.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA02792; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:14:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from junkmale@pop3.xtra.co.nz) Received: from wocker ([210.55.210.87]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990115071343.FIZH678125.mta2-rme@wocker>; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:13:43 +1300 From: "Dan Langille" Organization: The FreeBSD Diary To: Greg Lehey , imp@village.org Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:12:55 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/tcpdump/tcpslice tcpslice.c Reply-to: junkmale@xtra.co.nz CC: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <19990115173053.N55525@freebie.lemis.com> References: <199901150649.XAA21928@harmony.village.org>; from Warner Losh on Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 11:49:43PM -0700 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-Id: <19990115071343.FIZH678125.mta2-rme@wocker> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On 15 Jan 99, at 17:30, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Thursday, 14 January 1999 at 23:49:43 -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <19990115170933.L55525@freebie.lemis.com> Greg Lehey writes: > > : I thought there was some guideline that small 2-digit years represent > > : 20xx, and large 2-digit years represent 19xx. > > > > The short answer is that it depends. I think that w/o reading the > > file that tcpslice is looking at it would be hard to know for sure > > which year to use. So I made an arbitrary choice that made the > > behavior well defined. About a year ago I did some work for New Zealand Fire Service regarding Y2K issues. During that time I was exposed to the British Standards Institution Y2K standards. I stole the following from http://www.bsi.org.uk/bsi/disc/year2000/2000.html: THE DEFINITION Year 2000 conformity shall mean that neither performance nor functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after the year 2000. In particular: Rule 1 No value for current date will cause any interruption in operation. Rule 2 Date-based functionality must behave consistently for dates prior to, during and after year 2000. Rule 3 In all interfaces and data storage, the century in any date must be specified either explicitly or by unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules. Rule 4 Year 2000 must be recognized as a leap year. According to Rule 3, the code as it stands, is, IMHO, Y2K compliant. > > Two digit dates generally have been interpreted as meaning in the > > century that context says they are in. I suppose that I could have > > figured out what year it was and made that year the "pivot" year. For > > example, right now 1999 is the pivot year. 1999 + 50 is 2049 and 1999 - > > 49 is 1950, so any number >= 50 means 19xx, while any number < 50 means > > 20xx. In 2001 the pivot is 52, 2009 the pivot is 60, etc. You can > > quibble over the edge cases I'm sure. > > > > Some have proposed that single digits < 38 mean 20xx and > 38 mean > > 19xx, but that isn't a good long term solution.... > > > > If you have a better suggestion, please let me know, or commit better > > patches. :-) The above is one approach. Many places take different approaches each according to their needs. > Given the mass hysteria that seems to be building up to the turn of > the century, I'm quite happy to let you do it :-) Yeah. I've been sent some stuff by political activists claiming that Y2K is a reason to get back to the land and reduce our dependency on technology. I, for one, will be not be leaving the country. > If you look at http://www.eunet.pt/ano2000/sun/sup_sun5.htm, you'll > see that Sun uses a pivot date of 68 (i.e. two-digit years range > between 1969 and 2068). I'm assuming that they have some reason to > choose this particular number, and that others will do the same. > There's also more stuff at http://www.sun.com/y2000/index.html, but I > haven't looked at it much. There is, however, a guide at > http://www.sun.com/y2000/devguide.html, which looks well worth reading. > You might be interested in this: > > If a two-digit year representation is necessary, define 00-68 as > 2000-2068 and 69-99 as 1969-1999. This too is a good strategy. But they all achieve the same thing. Conformaty with Rule 3. Hope this helps. -- Dan Langille The FreeBSD Diary http://www.FreeBSDDiary.com/freebsd To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message