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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2024-03-20, at 04:49, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Please see our mail sent on 3/14/2024 for our additional follow-up questions, which have not yet been addressed. 

Indeed, I was waiting for confirmation on a draft response from my co-author, but maybe these points will not be very controversial, so here they are.

Grüße, Carsten

-----

Hi Alanna,

> On 2024-03-15, at 06:34, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. We’ve updated the files accordingly.

Thank you.

> Please note that we have some follow-up questions/comments. 

Responses below.

>>> 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.
>> 
>> This was a deliberate historical reference; RFC 5905 does not contain the cited appendix.
>> (The RFC References conventions are exhibiting an insufficiency here in that they do not allow a reference to be marked as **historic**, which gives rise to problems like this again and again.)
>> To not overload the sentence in the main text, maybe we can add an <annotation to the RFC 1305 references entry itself, as in:
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Note that this document has been obsoleted by RFC 5905, which no longer contains the Appendix E referenced in here.
> 
> 
> RFCs do not typically use <annotation> in this way.

Interesting.
(Is that pointed out in a style guide?  
I think relatively new elements such as <annotation could benefit from some style guidance.)

> Our preference is that this intentional use of an obsoleted RFC is noted within the body of the document; a separate sentence in parentheses is fine.
> 
> 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], 
>  Section 3 of [ISO8601:1988], and the appropriate ITU documents 
>  [ITU-R-TF.460-6]. (Note: [RFC1305] was obsoleted by [RFC5905], 
>  which no longer contains the Appendix E referenced here.)

That works.  Thank you.

>>> 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).  
>>> -->
>> 
>> This is text that is to be imagined as the new text of Section 4.3 of RFC 3339, so a self-reference would be weird.
> 
> If RFC 3339 was updated with the new text, it might be confusing because RFC 3339 is the original version of the specification.  May we update the text to avoid mention of “original version” altogether?
> 
> 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”.  ("-00:00” 
>  |  cannot be the offset because it 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).

The problem is that our power to fully deprecate -00:00 is limited 20 years after publishing 3339, hence the weaselwording with “less interoperable”.
So I think the text needs to point out that RFC 3339 was published with “-00:00” as the solution for this case.
Maybe the whole construct of providing replacement text for an existing RFC is not that healthy, but we thought we had made it work.

>>> 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
>>> -->
>> 
>> We are using typewriter fonts as a poor way to avoid the use of hyphens in place of minus signs, which can be quite confusing.  So the "-05:00” and "-00:00” probably should be <tt>-05:00</tt>, as should be -08:00.  
>> For consistency, the +00:00 and +01:00 then also should be <tt.
> 
> Please let us know if the use of <tt> should be made consistent with "Europe/Paris”. Note that we also see instances of "Europe/London” without <tt>.

Europe/Paris and Europe/London are mostly used in the examples, where it is clear that these are the TZDB names.  The four instances in the text that are not marked up <tt probably should be.  Thank you for pointing this out.

>>> 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].  
>>> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> I think some of these changes increase confusion.
>> 
>> We are using "[RFC3339] timestamps” as in “timestamps as originally specified in RFC 3339”.
>> The "as described in” workaround sometimes works, but sometimes opens ambiguities as to what part of the sentence actually is qualified as "described in 3339”.
>> There also is a general increase in sentence complexity.
>> 
>> So while we generally try to conform to the "text must make
>> sense with everything in brackets removed" rule, we should value readability above that:
>> 
>>>> However, this abuse is now so pervasively a standard feature of RFCs
>>>> that I have made my peace with it.
>> 
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/axDJV0j2Tvd8JuD2fdAWqv0SpWA>
>> 
>> In summary, we would prefer a milder application of this rule, given that we are not completely fulfilling it anyway.
> 
> We have reverted these instances to the phrasing in the original text. 

Thank you.

I will follow up with a few more observations about editorial changes of the RFC-to-be from the I-D, and then there are likely to be a few more comments from the full rereads.

Grüße, Carsten


> …
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9557-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> 
> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.
> 
> We will await 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
> 
>> On Mar 12, 2024, at 9:58 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear RFC-Editor,
>> 
>> please find our responses below.
>> 
>> We will do a full reread of the document once these responses are reflected in the document.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> 
>> On 2024-03-12, at 03:08, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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. -->
>> 
>> Gregorian calendar
>> Calendar awareness
>> Time zone
>> ISO 8601
>> Temporal
>> RFC 3339
>> Extension
>> Internet Extended Date/Time Format
>> IXDTF
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Yes!
>> 
>> I would add the (original) text of the abstract (both paragraphs) at the end of the introduction to Section 1, before the 1.1 heading.
>> 
>>> 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".
>>> -->
>> 
>> (It probably can be argued whether this pointer into this document really makes the abstract no longer be “complete in itself”, but we won’t.)
>> 
>>> 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]. 
>>> -->      
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>>> 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.)
>>> -->
>> 
>> These are all good changes.  However, the definition now no longer is that from Section 2 of RFC 3339, maybe we can fix this this way:
>> 
>>> Perhaps: 
>>> 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.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> This was a deliberate historical reference; RFC 5905 does not contain the cited appendix.
>> (The RFC References conventions are exhibiting an insufficiency here in that they do not allow a reference to be marked as **historic**, which gives rise to problems like this again and again.)
>> To not overload the sentence in the main text, maybe we can add an <annotation to the RFC 1305 references entry itself, as in:
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Note that this document has been obsoleted by RFC 5905, which no longer contains the Appendix E referenced in here.
>> 
>>> 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].
>>> -->
>> 
>> While ITU-R has several interesting documents in its TF series, many of these are withdrawn, and they often cannot be understood without some context that is hard to explore.  So we think we should limit this set of pointers to the one document that clearly has the strongest relevance here, in particular as a baseline to the changes to the leap second system we’ll see in the next decade or so.
>> 
>>> 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).  
>>> -->
>> 
>> This is text that is to be imagined as the new text of Section 4.3 of RFC 3339, so a self-reference would be weird.
>> 
>>> 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
>>> -->
>> 
>> (The 3.3 original was
>>  3.3.  Optional Generation, Elective vs. Critical Consumption
>> and should have been a semicolon at least…)
>> 
>> Good changes.
>> 
>> 
>> While looking into 3.4, I found:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> In case of inconsistent time-offset and time zone suffix, if the
>> Current:
>> In case of an inconsistent time-offset and time zone suffix, …
>> 
>> Really, this is about an inconsistency *between* the time-offset field and a time zone suffix; the old text clearly needs to be fixed but the new one makes this even less obvious.
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>> In case of an inconsistency between time-offset and time zone suffix, …
>> 
>> 
>>> 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].
>>> -->   
>> 
>> Yes, that (almost) works.
>> We tried to contrast stable and development here, so maybe:
>> 
>> Suggested:
>> [CLDR-LINKS] provides links
>> to the most recent information about [CLDR], both stable and specific development stages.
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> -->
>> 
>> That is indeed the correct way to handle this.
>> 
>>> 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
>>> -->
>> 
>> We are using typewriter fonts as a poor way to avoid the use of hyphens in place of minus signs, which can be quite confusing.  So the "-05:00” and "-00:00” probably should be <tt>-05:00</tt>, as should be -08:00.  
>> For consistency, the +00:00 and +01:00 then also should be <tt.
>> 
>>> 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
>>> -->
>> 
>> Interestingly, the lowercase "IANA time zone" are in the definition of “IANA Time Zone”, which is otherwise consistently used in uppercase elsewhere.
>> 
>> IANA seems to like “Time Zone Database”: https://www.iana.org/time-zones
>> 
>> Since there may be many time zone databases out there, but we mean the one IANA Time Zone Database, we should go to uppercase for this consistently.
>> 
>>> 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].  
>>> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> I think some of these changes increase confusion.
>> 
>> We are using "[RFC3339] timestamps” as in “timestamps as originally specified in RFC 3339”.
>> The "as described in” workaround sometimes works, but sometimes opens ambiguities as to what part of the sentence actually is qualified as "described in 3339”.
>> There also is a general increase in sentence complexity.
>> 
>> So while we generally try to conform to the "text must make
>> sense with everything in brackets removed" rule, we should value readability above that:
>> 
>>>> However, this abuse is now so pervasively a standard feature of RFCs
>>>> that I have made my peace with it.
>> 
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rswg/axDJV0j2Tvd8JuD2fdAWqv0SpWA>
>> 
>> In summary, we would prefer a milder application of this rule, given that we are not completely fulfilling it anyway.
>> 
>>> 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)
>>> -->
>> 
>> That is one place where the normal way of expanding abbreviations doesn’t work.
>> Many people refer to UTC as GMT, without any clue as to what that abbreviation might mean.
>> As changed, the sentence is now no longer correct, as much fewer people actually say “Greenwich Mean Time”.
>> Can we invert this to
>> 
>> OLD:
>> … referred to as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), …
>> NEW:
>> … referred to as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), …
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> -->
>>> 
>> 
>> We are not currently aware of any language in the document that is not inclusive.
>> We will consider this point again while doing the full re-reads.
>> 
>> Thank you for the nice edits we saw when glancing through the document!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
>