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

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

--On February 2, 2015 at 10:41:18 PM -0500 Barry Leiba 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think those descriptions are clear, and they look correct and complete
> to me.  I'd be happy with them if the working group agrees.
>
> But let me present an alternative formulation:
>
> 1. If the date is invalid because the month is not a valid month in the
> currect year, the SKIP is to the next (forward) or previous (backward)
> valid month.
>
> 2. Otherwise, the SKIP is to the next (forward) or previous (backward)
> valid day.
>
> I think that covers the situation.  If you think you need to explain the
> different "day" situations further, which is never a bad thing, that can
> be added as explanatory text.  Yes/no?

That might be sufficient, but with one further complication that just 
occurred to me. For the case of a leap month, what happens if the 
day-of-month value in the skipped to non-leap month is now not valid for 
that month? e.g., leap month has 30 days, following month only has 29 days. 
Do we then also apply the forward/backward nearest valid day skip to the 
resulting invalid date too? I think we have to state that as well. So with 
your rules, #2 is not an "otherwise". So perhaps 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. Use the resulting date for the next test.

2. 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.


-- 
Cyrus Daboo