Skip to Main Content
IBM Data and AI Ideas Portal for Customers

This portal is to open public enhancement requests against products and services offered by the IBM Data & AI organization. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas

Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

IBM Data & AI Roadmaps ( - Use this site to view roadmaps for Data & AI products.

IBM Employees should enter Ideas at

Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Mar 31, 2020

MDM AE : Performance overhead due to timestamp field format

As per the Bank's service contract, timestamp must have 'T' in the data to comply the contract validation. (Ex: 2012-03-25T00:00:00.002).

But on IBM MDM service response, this T is not available on timestamp which leads to contract validation failure.

Currently this issue is handled in middleware by overlaying ‘T' on timestamp field which is incurring an overhead. (Ex: 2012-03-25 00:00:00.002).

Needed by Date Apr 1, 2020
  • Guest
    Aug 20, 2020

    RBC has, I think, a similar requirement - compliance with date-time format per RFC 3339

  • Admin
    Marcus Boone
    Mar 31, 2020

    Eric - thank you for the sumission. We are reviewing the information you have provided and will post an update here or to you directly. Was the workaround you have in place something provided by IBM Support or something you/your solution provider implemented? Perhaps you could send me details on the workaround to Thanks again.