apache's year 2000 compliance

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Mercantile Mutual - Delivery Service » Wed, 04 Dec 1996 04:00:00



Hi,

I'm working on year 2000 compliance status of softwares.  We are using
Apache 1.1 on HP-UX 10.01.  Can you provide some information about its
year 2000 compliance status ?  If it is, is there any pre-requisites
software such as operating system or system utilities ?  If it is not,
is a compliant version planned and when it's due ?  And is there
pre-requisites software that would be needed ?

Thanks for your attention.

Regards,
Keith Chan

p.s. this is the first time I participate in newsgroups, can you reply

Chan" as it is a shared account.  Thanks.

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Alan C » Wed, 04 Dec 1996 04:00:00




Quote:>I'm working on year 2000 compliance status of softwares.  We are using
>Apache 1.1 on HP-UX 10.01.  Can you provide some information about its
>year 2000 compliance status ?  If it is, is there any pre-requisites
>software such as operating system or system utilities ?  If it is not,
>is a compliant version planned and when it's due ?  And is there
>pre-requisites software that would be needed ?

Boot your machine in the year 2020 and run tests for a week. In the Unix
world worry about 2036 compliance...

Alan

--

-------- http://www.cymru.net ----------       Phone: +44 1792 290194
Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Kim Nas » Wed, 04 Dec 1996 04:00:00


What do you mean, 2036 compliance? what's the potential problem?

kim


> Boot your machine in the year 2020 and run tests for a week. In the Unix
> world worry about 2036 compliance...

> Alan

> --

> -------- http://www.cymru.net ----------        Phone: +44 1792 290194
> Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Robert Anderso » Wed, 04 Dec 1996 04:00:00



> What do you mean, 2036 compliance? what's the potential problem?

> kim

Time in unix is expressed as seconds since the epoch, or January 1,
1970.  This is a long integer, which in most cases maxes out in 2036
(the size limit of long int is reached).

I don't know if this applies to all falvors of Unix.  Anyone care to add
more light to this thread?

Robert Anderson.


> > Boot your machine in the year 2020 and run tests for a week. In the Unix
> > world worry about 2036 compliance...

> > Alan

> > --

> > -------- http://www.cymru.net ----------        Phone: +44 1792 290194
> > Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Bartley R Troya » Wed, 04 Dec 1996 04:00:00


See URL
http://www-ad.fsl.noaa.gov/moore/trans-text.html

Search down for the words "Data Formats"

Maybe we'll see this in a future computerworld article :-)  I'll be
really surprised if, by 2036, we can't automate fixing a problem like
this or the Y2K problem.  Then again, if microsoft takes over the
world...who knows...

Bart

Excerpts from netnews.comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix: 3-Dec-96 Re:


> Subject: Re: apache's year 2000 compliance
> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 12:23:15 -0600

> What do you mean, 2036 compliance? what's the potential problem?

> kim


> > Boot your machine in the year 2020 and run tests for a week. In the Unix
> > world worry about 2036 compliance...

> > Alan

> > --

> > -------- http://www.cymru.net ----------        Phone: +44 1792 290194
> > Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support

---
Bartley Troyan
BLaCKSMITH, Inc.

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Alan C » Thu, 05 Dec 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>What do you mean, 2036 compliance? what's the potential problem?

Seconds since 1970 overflowing a long on 32bit unix boxes.

Alan
--

-------- http://www.cymru.net ----------       Phone: +44 1792 290194
Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Nathan Neuling » Thu, 05 Dec 1996 04:00:00



| Hi,
|
| I'm working on year 2000 compliance status of softwares.  We are using
| Apache 1.1 on HP-UX 10.01.  Can you provide some information about its
| year 2000 compliance status ?  If it is, is there any pre-requisites
| software such as operating system or system utilities ?  If it is not,
| is a compliant version planned and when it's due ?  And is there
| pre-requisites software that would be needed ?
|

As has been manetioned by others, unix's typically don't suffer from the
year 2000 problem.

The year 2000 problem typically only affects systems or applications that
actually use two digits to store the year.

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                  Univ. of Missouri - Rolla

WWW: http://www.umr.edu/~nneul      SysAdmin: rollanet.org

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Tim Hoga » Sat, 07 Dec 1996 04:00:00



: | Hi,
: |
: | I'm working on year 2000 compliance status of softwares.  We are using
: | Apache 1.1 on HP-UX 10.01.  Can you provide some information about its
: | year 2000 compliance status ?  If it is, is there any pre-requisites
: | software such as operating system or system utilities ?  If it is not,
: | is a compliant version planned and when it's due ?  And is there
: | pre-requisites software that would be needed ?
: |

: As has been manetioned by others, unix's typically don't suffer from the
: year 2000 problem.

: The year 2000 problem typically only affects systems or applications that
: actually use two digits to store the year.

With Apache the only problem might be the logs if you mess with them.
The default logs have all 4 digits in the year. If you have any
applications that have a problem with two digits years, that may cause
you problems.

-tim
http://www.abnormal.com

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Giovanni » Fri, 13 Dec 1996 04:00:00






>> I'm working on year 2000 compliance status of softwares.  We are using
>> Apache 1.1 on HP-UX 10.01.  Can you provide some information about its
>> year 2000 compliance status?  If it is, is there any pre-requisites
>> software such as operating system or system utilities?  If it is not,
>> is a compliant version planned and when it's due?  And is there
>> pre-requisites software that would be needed?

> Boot your machine in the year 2020 and run tests for a week.
> In the Unix world worry about 2036 compliance...

Isn't it more of a matter of conflict between the RFC for net
messages (822?), which requires that funky
dow, dm mon yy hh:mm:ss zone
date/time format with a 2 digit year (dow of week, 2 digit day of month,
etc.), instead of the ISO (1685?) form
year-mm-ddThh:mm:ss

Sorry about vagueness on the standard designation numbers, but
I don't have a way to pop over to check them from here, and pop
back to continue to compose the message.  The RFC is linked in
with the http://www.apache.org documentation pages.
jgo

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by William Lew » Sat, 14 Dec 1996 04:00:00



> Isn't it more of a matter of conflict between the RFC for net
> messages (822?), which requires that funky
> dow, dm mon yy hh:mm:ss zone
> date/time format with a 2 digit year (dow of week, 2 digit day of month,
> etc.), instead of the ISO (1685?) form
> year-mm-ddThh:mm:ss

> Sorry about vagueness on the standard designation numbers, but
> I don't have a way to pop over to check them from here, and pop
> back to continue to compose the message.  The RFC is linked in
> with the http://www.apache.org documentation pages.

Hmm, the link on the Apache pages refers for date formats to RFC 850,
which is an obsolete standard for USENET message transport. (The
current standard is RFC 1036, as far as I know, though there have been
some changes over the last ten years.) Both of them inherit the Date
format from RFC 822 (the email standard), which allows but does not
require a four-digit year. There might be some confusion because both
give an example of a two-digit-year date which is acceptable and a
four-year-digit date which is not, but the length of the year field is
not the problem.

The version of the HTTP/1.0 spec which is RFC 1945 specifies that there
are three acceptable date formats:

       Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT    ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123
       Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT   ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036
       Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994         ; ANSI C's asctime() format

The first two are subsets of the formats allowed by the referenced
RFCs. The first format is preferred; the third format is supposed
to be accepted but never generated (a legacy format).

The spec has at various times said slightly other things, so not all
implementations generate exactly these dates (Apache 1.0.0, at least,
puts a "?" for the time field, provision for which was IIRC in the spec
at one point but seems to be no longer.)

Anyway, the upshot of all this is that HTTP is not Y2K-incapable,
although one of the three allowable date formats will become unusable.

(I do wonder about Year 10000 compliance --- there will be a *lot* of
legacy code by then.)

--

 PGP 0x27F772C1: 0C 0D 10 D5 FC 73 D1 35  26 46 42 9E DC 6E 0A 88
                  USENET: No Fun Anymore since 1987

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Andrew Gide » Tue, 17 Dec 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>The version of the HTTP/1.0 spec which is RFC 1945 specifies that there
>are three acceptable date formats:

>       Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT    ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123
>       Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT   ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036
>       Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994         ; ANSI C's asctime() format

While we're (almost) on the subject, could someone please explain
the rational behind including the name of the day (ie "Sun")?  It
is redundant, so why bother?  It just makes for more when when sending
these headers.  I've looked at the HTTP1.0 specification, but I don't
see anything along the lines of "why" there.

I've the same question about cookie expiration specification, BTW.

If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

        - Andrew

--
 -----------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew Gideon              |   TAG Online Inc.            |
| Consultant                 |   539 Valley Road            |
|                            |   Upper Montclair, N.J.      |
| Tel: (201) 783-5583        |                     07043    |
| Fax: (201) 783-5334        |                              |

 -----------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

apache's year 2000 compliance

Post by Matthew Mill » Tue, 17 Dec 1996 04:00:00



[snip]

Quote:>>       Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT    ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123
>>       Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT   ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036
>>       Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994         ; ANSI C's asctime() format

[snip]

Quote:>While we're (almost) on the subject, could someone please explain
>the rational behind including the name of the day (ie "Sun")?  It

[snip]

I think it's for us humans. It's nice to be able to look through log files
and see what day something happened. The day name is helpful for that.

 
 
 

1. Apache Year 2000 compliance

Hello,

Could someone from the Apache group please let me (and everyone) know
if Apache is Year 2000 compliant?  I would really appreciate an e-mail

Seeing as the year is coming up, corporations are starting to look at
their tools to make sure they meet the standard, including mine.

Thanks!

Jon Petruk
Nortel Technologies

2. rdump question

3. Info on Linux Year 2000 Compliance

4. XWin problems

5. Year 2000 Compliance Toolsets for UNIX Environments

6. file operations in ksh scripts

7. Millennium Year 2000 compliance

8. reduce stack in wireless/airo.c

9. Year 2000 Compliance test scripts

10. Year 2000 compliance ???

11. Year 2000 Compliance

12. Year 2000 compliance

13. shell year 2000 compliance