IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Proposed charter for extended date format

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FF03A194B; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 H3mWo8Fd91Ih; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 528083A1946; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john@jck.com>) id 1lWjdH-000Gzb-RD; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:48:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:48:50 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
cc: Ujjwal Sharma <usharma@igalia.com>, dispatch@ietf.org, Shane Carr <sffc@google.com>
Message-ID: <0E58D894057CC085A71CE062@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <A6E0CEE4-DFFD-42D2-A514-17E6C7CED24F@cisco.com>
References: <b654b280-00eb-4869-918f-5580347601ef@dogfood.fastmail.com> <9e1bc197-19d5-44d1-867f-6d35108d63ae@dogfood.fastmail.com> <A6E0CEE4-DFFD-42D2-A514-17E6C7CED24F@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Dk9neGNDRzva_4oYHRb3X_ZsQnc>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposed charter for extended date format
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:49:00 -0000


--On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 19:42 +0200 Eliot Lear
<lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Just one question:
> 
> Is it necessary for both the IETF and TC39 to standardize this?

Eliot,

See the note I just posted but to extract a quick comment for
those who are disinclined to read long notes...

You might reasonably has said:

	Is it necessary for both the IETF, ECMA TC39, and,
	perhaps unless they can be guaranteed to adopt the ECMA
	proposal, ISO, to standardize this?

IMO, good question.

    john

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status