The used time format is actually RFC5424, a subset of ISO8601

[ioggstream]

Suggestion

The given timestamp format is RFC5424, a subset of ISO8601

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5424#section-6.2.3

A more liberal approach - though more restrictive than iso8601 - is RFC3339

[brandur]

This seems reasonable to me. If we add it, it might be worth also including a short one-sentence summary of the differences between each of the formats too – it's almost completely unintuitive.

[geemus]

Apologies for delay, work-travel last week, so playing inbox catchup now.

I'm certainly in favor of being more precise about our actual usage.

If I read correctly, going from least restrictive to most restrictive would be: ISO8601, 3339, 5424.

I would be happy to just suggest 5424, pointing out that it is a more restrictive subset of 8601.

@ioggstream would you be up for a PR with this enhancement? Thanks!