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

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.


1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


2) <!-- [rfced] We removed "; see Section 2" from this sentence in the
abstract. Per RFC 7322, the abstract "should be complete in itself"
because it "will appear in isolation in publication announcements and in
the online index of RFCs". Would it be helpful to include this sentence
(with the pointer to Section 2) somewhere in the Introduction?

Original:
   It updates RFC3339 in the specific interpretation of the local offset
   Z, which is no longer understood to "imply that UTC is the preferred
   reference point for the specified time"; see Section 2.
   
Updated:
   It updates RFC 3339 in the specific interpretation of the local offset
   Z, which is no longer understood to "imply that UTC is the preferred
   reference point for the specified time".
-->


3) <!--[rfced] FYI - We updated "International Earth Rotation and Reference
Frames Service" to "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems
Service" ("Frames" to "Systems").

See https://www.iers.org/SharedDocs/Acronyms/EN/acronyms.html-467.htm?nn=79310&cms_lv2=15226&cms_lv3=149394.

Original:
   UTC:  Coordinated Universal Time, as maintained since 1988 by the
      Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in conjunction
      with leap seconds as announced by the International Earth Rotation
      and Reference Frames Service [IERS].

Current:
   UTC:  Coordinated Universal Time, as maintained since 1988 by the
      Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in conjunction
      with leap seconds, as announced by the International Earth
      Rotation and Reference Systems Service [IERS]. 
-->      


4) <!-- [rfced] May we update "which" to "that", update "spoken" to "pronounced",
and expand ICAO in this definition? Or do you prefer to leave as is to
exactly match the definition in Section 2 of RFC 3339?

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.)

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


5) <!-- [rfced] May we add text here indicating that RFC 1305 has been obsoleted
by RFC 5905 and also add an informative reference to RFC 5905? See
Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322.

Also, please review "the appropriate ITU documents [ITU-R-TF.460-6]". Should
this be updated to something like "the appropriate ITU documents, such as
[ITU-R-TF.460-6]" (i.e., add "such as")?

Original:
   For more information about timescales, see Appendix E of [RFC1305],
   Section 3 of [ISO8601:1988], and the appropriate ITU documents
   [ITU-R-TF.460-6].
   
Perhaps: 
   For more information about timescales, see Appendix E of [RFC1305] (note
   that [RFC1305] was obsoleted by [RFC5905),
   Section 3 of [ISO8601:1988], and the appropriate ITU documents, such as
   [ITU-R-TF.460-6].
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, would it be helpful to update "The original version
of this specification" to "[RFC3339]"?

Original:
   |  If the time in UTC is known, but the offset to local time is
   |  unknown, this can be represented with an offset of "Z".  (The
   |  original version of this specification provided "-00:00" for this
   |  purpose, which is not allowed by [ISO8601:2000] and therefore is
   |  less interoperable; Section 3.3 of [RFC5322] describes a related
   |  convention for email which does not have this problem).
   
Perhaps: 
   |  If the time in UTC is known, but the offset to local time is
   |  unknown, this can be represented with an offset of "Z".  
   |  ([RFC3339] provided "-00:00" for this
   |  purpose, which is not allowed by [ISO8601:2000] and therefore is
   |  less interoperable; Section 3.3 of [RFC5322] describes a related
   |  convention for email, which does not have this problem).  
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] We updated these section titles as follows (used "and" instead
of "," and "/"). Please review and let us know any concerns.

Original:
     3.3.  Optional Generation and Elective vs. Critical Consumption
     3.4.  Inconsistent time-offset/Time-Zone Information
     
Perhaps: 
     3.3.  Optional Generation and Elective vs. Critical Consumption
     3.4.  Inconsistent time-offset and Time Zone Information
-->


8) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing the sentence below. How may
we update for clarity?

Original:
   A resource that has been built to provide links
   into the most recent stable and development [CLDR] information about
   that is provided by [CLDR-LINKS].

Perhaps:
   [CLDR-LINKS] provides links
   to the most recent and stable development information about [CLDR].
-->   


9) <!-- [rfced] We updated "IESG" to "IETF" in the Change Controller field of
table in the IANA Consideration section to match the IANA registry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/internet-date-time-format. Please let us
know any objections.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the Acknowledgements section per Francesca
Palombini's email dated 2023-11-25. However, we note that Justin Grant is
listed in both the Acknowledgements and Contributors sections. If any
changes are needed, please let us know.
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the use of <tt> and let us know if any updates are
needed. We see some similar text that appears with <tt>,
with quotation marks, and without either <tt> or quotation marks.

Some examples from the xml file:

<tt>+00:00</tt>
<tt>-00:00</tt>

"-05:00”
"-00:00"

+00:00
+01:00
-08:00

<tt>Europe/Paris</tt>

Europe/Paris
-->


12) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used 
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they 
may be made consistent.

IANA Time Zone vs. IANA time zone
Time Zone Database vs. time zone database
-->


13) <!--[rfced] The following sentences use "[RFC3339]" and "RFC 3339" as an
adjective. We have rephrased to avoid this (per "RFC Citations as
Compounds" at https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#rfc_as_compound).
Please review and let us know if any of these instances can be improved,
especially the last two with "[RFC3339] part".

Original:
   *  The extension suffix is completely optional, making existing
      [RFC3339] timestamps compatible with this format.
   ...
   Offset Time Zone:  A time zone defined by a specific UTC offset, e.g.
      +08:45, and serialized using as its name the same numeric UTC
      offset format used in an RFC 3339 timestamp, for example:
   ...      
   The format allows applications to specify additional important
   information in addition to a bare [RFC3339] timestamp.
   ...
   An RFC 3339 timestamp can contain a time-offset value that indicates
   the offset between local time and UTC (see Section 4 of [RFC3339], ...
   ...
   Figure 4: RFC 3339 date-time with time zone offset
   ...
   As per Section 4.3 of [RFC3339] as updated by Section 2, IXDTF
   timestamps may also forego indicating local time information in their
   [RFC3339] part by using Z instead of a numeric time zone offset.
   ...
   The IXDTF timestamps in Figure 2 (which represent the same instant in
   time as the strings in Figure 1) are not inconsistent because they do
   not assert any particular local time nor local offset in their
   [RFC3339] part.

Updated:
   *  The extension suffix is completely optional, making existing
      timestamps [RFC3339] compatible with this format.
   ...
   Offset Time Zone:  A time zone defined by a specific UTC offset,
      e.g., +08:45, and serialized using as its name the same numeric
      UTC offset format used in a timestamp as described in [RFC3339],
      for example:
   ...
   The format allows applications to specify additional important
   information in addition to a bare timestamp as described in
   [RFC3339].
   ...
   A timestamp as described in [RFC3339] can contain a time-offset value
   that indicates the offset between local time and UTC (see Section 4
   of [RFC3339], ...
   ...
   Figure 4: date-time per RFC 3339 with Time Zone Offset
   ...
   As per Section 4.3 of [RFC3339] as updated by Section 2, IXDTF
   timestamps may also forego indicating local time information in the
   part described by [RFC3339] by using Z instead of a numeric time zone
   offset.
   ...
   The IXDTF timestamps in Figure 2 (which represent the same
   instant in time as the strings in Figure 1) are not inconsistent
   because they do not assert any particular local time nor local offset
   in the part described by [RFC3339].  
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviation
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review carefully to
ensure correctness.

Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 
and let us know if any changes are needed. 

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still 
be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/rv



On Mar 11, 2024, at 7:04 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/03/11

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes 
where text has been deleted or moved): 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9557

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9557 (draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-11)

Title            : Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps with additional information
Author(s)        : U. Sharma, C. Bormann
WG Chair(s)      : Bron Gondwana, Mark McFadden
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini