Re: [calsify] SKIP was Re: AD review of draft-ietf-calext-rscale-03

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 03 February 2015 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9536C1A0636 for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:11:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21Na6A04jFyI for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:11:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ABD51A0065 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:11:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id s18so52833687lam.5 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:11:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GeyFekLORNz7pbDvZ1tsueqjo5OTlZpd/NcSph8Eimc=; b=NIuesQndxLIe08a02bHTcgxH9SdgPFzC+odTaBjITB5ecww+h8byGikOHwcwWCCCkO KK4YHG4JqLYtxtBzU4xCyYA+EzYTuAbJgUirep9XC6sOIh+a1IpDh6b8T+C1wk8caZMh b6jdR4BuLOcn3rnX35ogmrxqtIbezOLWm0vklxSOrjI+OpWXEWjpn9xl6HqaiWnGGhQx KnyblDnJAAQmcrtAkitPH879aBw7soetESTu+HLWGOBZaIOP7OkjTFByDgfJ4BGhRDrt pj3zzC29DCmUrgznsDa8R8NfMtVaj7jPjkgkmNo9ti+oSDnPNcbRM82u1+amsMP9coUn OLgw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.29.6 with SMTP id f6mr13683770lah.82.1422976305761; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.127.168 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:11:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C80A141CD062EFF630B6D2BB@caldav.corp.apple.com>
References: <68FCD7D11F934509267D5915@cyrus.local> <CALaySJKQP9WjRQV2qrgfLiGwj-SQAUCF6RVcQuRrUYNpfqp17A@mail.gmail.com> <7FF77F2FE3390FFD1149E953@cyrus.local> <CALaySJK3RiXXHTq9MC4nwA4c_gZzEVDoWa96MDc7Ue4yDRgbWA@mail.gmail.com> <C80A141CD062EFF630B6D2BB@caldav.corp.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:11:45 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wXRkNIlajFTz231AGgppGQJc6zA
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+N8kgsybmDK-LZQy-RRc1vvjVS9Jgx0ZdgsSpgJpx5Xw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/4nX8Z8OA-SMrMWPmN9twLO3sFtY>
Cc: Calsify <calsify@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [calsify] SKIP was Re: AD review of draft-ietf-calext-rscale-03
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:11:51 -0000

> So I now have this:
>
> 1. If the date is invalid because the month is not a valid month in the
> correct year, the SKIP is to the next (forward) or previous (backward)
> valid month. If the resulting date is invalid (the day-of-month exceeds the
> number of days in the specified month) then adjust the day-of-month to the
> last (valid) value for that month.
>
> 2. Otherwise, if the date is invalid because the day-of-month is not valid
> for that month, the SKIP is to the next (forward) or previous (backward)
> valid day.

I think you want "current year", rather than "correct year", no?
Otherwise, this (and your reasoning) seems good.

b