Re: [dispatch] Proposed charter for extended date format

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

I know that on IETF mailing lists it is unusual to discuss what the subject line says the discussion is about, but...

(1) I think we are discussing date/time formats here, not date formats.

(2) I think we are also discussing text string formats only, not formats in general.

If either of these assumptions is not true, I need to point to:

* Calendar dates: RFC8943 [1], which has a compact (binary) format for calendar dates in addition to the usual text-string one (based on RFC 3339, of course)

* Compact, complex (“extended”) datetimes: draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag [2], which has some elements of a date/time format that go beyond tags 0 (text-string, RFC3339) and 1 (compact, Posix) in RFC8949 [3].  Partially also inspired by [4].

What the latter needs next is a good TZDB [5] indexing mechanism (a.k.a. time zone names [6]); a compact form would be a bonus here again.

Just saying.

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8943.html#section-1.1.1
[2]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag-04.html#section-3.4
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949.html#name-standard-date-time-string
[4]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8575.html#section-3
[5]: https://data.iana.org/time-zones/tz-link.html
[6]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6557.html