Re: [calsify] New Timestamp Draft

[Ujjwal Sharma <[e-mail]>]

One question: given things move forward smoothly, how do I proceed?
Should I apply for this document to be adopted by the calext WG? I
suppose the fastest way to proceed is to present it at the next IETF
meeting?



Ujjwal

On 12/01/2021 4.03 am, Ujjwal Sharma wrote:
> Hi Calsify folks!
> 
> I am sorry for the long delay, I got a little sidetracked working on
> other things, but I'm happy to inform you all that I have something that
> resembles a first draft for the updated timestamps RFC.
> 
> Here's where you can find it:
> 
> Datatracker:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ryzokuken-datetime-extended/
> GitHub: https://github.com/ryzokuken/draft-ryzokuken-datetime-extended
> 
> I would request you all to take a look at it when you can and let me
> know what you think. You can file a GitHub issue or email me directly.
> 
> There's a few open discussions regarding the exact format and how the
> interaction with bodies like the Unicode consortium work, so please feel
> free to send me your thoughts regarding that as well.
> 
> Also, some references/bibliography is not perfectly functional yet
> because I am still relatively new to authoring RFCs using Metanorma but
> I'm actively looking into it.
> 
> Thanks and looking forward to hear from you,
> Ujjwal
> 

-- 
Ujjwal "Ryzokuken" Sharma (he/him)

Compilers Hacker, Node.js Core Collaborator and Speaker