Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9557 <draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-11> for your review

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ujjwal,

Thank you for your comments. We made the updates you suggest (see list of files below) but have some followup questions as well:


> * In Scope, the "For this, …" starting the second sentence seems awkwardly worded.

Would deleting “For this" be an improvement? Or do you have another suggestion?

Current:
   [RFC3339] defines a syntax for timestamps to represent date and time
   in the Internet.  For this, the present document defines an extension
   syntax that achieves the following properties:

Perhaps:
   [RFC3339] defines a syntax for timestamps to represent date and time
   in the Internet.  The present document defines an extension
   syntax that achieves the following properties:


> * In Definitions, for Z, I disagree with altering the exact literal text of RFC 3339 while claiming that document as its source.

Please discuss with Carsten and let us know how to update this. We see that the changes to this defintion were proposed by Carsten in response to question #4 in the initial set of questions.

Original:
   Z:  A suffix which, when applied to a time, denotes a UTC offset of
      00:00; often spoken "Zulu" from the ICAO phonetic alphabet
      representation of the letter "Z".  (Definition from Section 2 of
      [RFC3339]; see [ICAO-PA] for the phonetic alphabet.)

Current:
   Z:  A suffix that, when applied to a time, denotes a UTC offset of
      00:00; often pronounced "Zulu" from the ICAO phonetic alphabet
      representation of the letter "Z".  (The definition is from
      Section 2 of [RFC3339]; see the International Civil Aviation
      Organization (ICAO) document [ICAO-PA] for the phonetic alphabet
      mentioned.)


The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.xml

The relevant diff files are posted here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9557

Thank you,
RFC Editor/rv



> On Apr 12, 2024, at 6:26 AM, Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alanna!
> 
> While I proceed with the review, I have a batch of comments already.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> * In Scope, the "For this, …" starting the second sentence seems awkwardly worded.
> 
> * In Scope, the "it does not address" list should probably use "or" rather than "and".
> 
> * In Definitions, for UTC, I disagree with introduction of the comma in "…in conjunction with leap seconds , as announced by…" (but I don't feel strongly about this).
> 
> * In Definitions, for UTC Offset, I think past tense would be more appropriate than present tense (i.e., "…in the wintertime in 2023 was 5 hours behind UTC, so its UTC offset was -05:00.").
> 
> * In Definitions, for Z, I disagree with altering the exact literal text of RFC 3339 while claiming that document as its source.
> 
> * In Inconsistent time-offset and Time Zone Information, the second use of "in Figure 1" should probably be stricken for redundancy and the containing sentence could be reworded for clarity to something like "…where the first case is one for which the application MUST act on the inconsistency (the time zone suffix is marked critical) and the second case is one for which it MAY act on the inconsistency (the time zone suffix is elective).".
> 
> * In ABNF, "which both are explicitly excluded" should be reworded to "which are both explicitly excluded".
> 
> * In ABNF, for the final note, I disagree with the change from "an entry in a timezone database on another platform" to "an entry in a Time Zone Database on another platform"—the new capitalization suggests reference to the [proper, singular] IANA Time Zone Database, which is not the case. I would recommend instead rewording that to "a time zone name on another platform" along with rewording "As the time-zone-name will ultimately have to be looked up in the database" to "As the time-zone-name will ultimately have to be looked up in the local database".
> 
> Hope they sound good, feel free to ask for any clarification.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ujjwal
> 
> On 12/04/2024 12:06 a.m., Alanna Paloma wrote:
>> Hi Ujjwal,
>> Thank you for letting us know. We’ve made a note of this on the AUTH48 status page:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9557
>> We look forward to hearing back from you when your review is complete.
>> Best regards,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>>> On Apr 10, 2024, at 9:45 AM, Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> My apologies for the delay Alanna, I've known that the publication is currently blocked on my final approval and that gives me no joy. However, I've been stuck with some rather complicated issues at work and therefore couldn't get to it despite trying really hard. I'll let you know as soon as I'm done.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Ujjwal
>>> 
>>> On 09/04/2024 6:39 p.m., Alanna Paloma wrote:
>>>> Hi Ujjwal,
>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and approval of this document.
>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.xml
>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)
>>>> Once we’ve received your approval, we with move forward with the publication process.
>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9557
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>> On Apr 2, 2024, at 3:24 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Carsten,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have updated the files per your request and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9557
>>>>> 
>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.txt
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.pdf
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.xml
>>>>> 
>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once we’ve received Ujjwal’s approval, we with move forward with the publication process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2024, at 2:02 PM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Alanna,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thank you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have one final change that is needed:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>  reference point for the specified time"; see <xref target="update"/>8.</t>
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>  reference point for the specified time"; see <xref target="update"/>.</t>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apologies for not noticing this earlier.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, the addition of an article here was incomplete (generator and recipient are not the same):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>> As a generator and recipient may be using different revisions of the
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>> As a generator and a recipient may be using different revisions of the
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With these changes, I believe RFC 9557-to-be will be ready for publication.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2. Apr 2024, at 18:03, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Carsten,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you for the explanation. We will leave the original phrasing of the text as is.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As all of our queries have now been addressed, we will await any further updates you may have as well as approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9557
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>>> […]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him)
>>> 
>>> Compilers Hacker at Igalia
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him)
> 
> Compilers Hacker at Igalia
>