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

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ujjwal and Carsten,

We have noted Ujjwal's approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9557).

We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. Thank you for your attention and guidance during AUTH48! 

We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/rv



> On Apr 15, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rebecca!
> 
> Thanks again, I approve the document and am excited to see it be published.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ujjwal
> 
> On 15/04/2024 8:04 p.m., Rebecca VanRheenen wrote:
>> H Ujjwal,
>> Thank you for the quick reply! No need to apologize - we appreciate your comments. We have updated the text in the “Scope” section. Please let us know if you have any further comments or if you approve the document in its current form.
>> 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 15, 2024, at 4:25 AM, Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 15/04/2024 7:58 a.m., Rebecca VanRheenen wrote:
>>>> 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:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rebecca! Thanks a ton for your updates and in hindsight I realize that I skimped on the processes a little bit so my apologies for that.
>>> 
>>>>> * 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:
>>> 
>>> The text seems easier to read so I support your proposal.
>>> 
>>>>> * 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.)
>>> 
>>> After some discussion with Carsten, I have realized that it was inappropriate of me to nitpick this text and I'd like to withdraw my suggestions. I think it's best for this text to remain as-is.
>>> 
>>> In conclusion, my apologies again for floating a whole bunch of comments at the last minute in a hurry without proper consideration and my thanks for handling them so very well. I'm quite happy with the editorial shape of the draft now.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ujjwal
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him)
>>> 
>>> Compilers Hacker at Igalia
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him)
> 
> Compilers Hacker at Igalia
>