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

[Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]>]

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