Re: [dispatch] Proposed charter for extended date format

[Shane Carr <[e-mail]>]

I am looking forward to seeing the charter for this WG adopted, so that we
can work on the substantive issues in that forum.  What are the next steps
to adopt the charter?


On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 8:21 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Just to follow up on this, in case there is any question or if anyone is
> keeping score, my question has been answered to my satisfaction and I
> support this work proceeding.
>
> Eliot
>
> On 14 Apr 2021, at 19:42, Eliot Lear <lear=[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Just one question:
>
> Is it necessary for *both* the IETF and TC39 to standardize this?
>
> Eliot
>
> On 14 Apr 2021, at 18:00, Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> This was discussed in the DISPATCH meeting at IETF110:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-110-dispatch/
>
> The conclusion of the discussion was:
>
> * Kirsty (chair): Sounds like there's general agreement that a working group is
> what's needed, we will take a final decision on the list and just confirm with
> Patrick as co-chair before officially dispatching as such. The link to the
> charter is on list too, please take a look and see if you think a BoF is needed
> as the next step or a WG can begin right away.
>
>
> So Murray (AD), do you think we have enough to request a working group be
> charted from the discussion and the proposed charter text quoted below?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bron.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021, at 15:20, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
> I've asked the chairs for space on the next dispatch agenda to talk about
> dispatch for
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ryzokuken-datetime-extended/
>
> The authors have taken on board the idea that we should extract the
> "obsolete RFC3339" and either remove it entirely, or separate it into a
> document which does nothing but update RFC3339 with support for a wider
> range of year values.  There will be an updated version of this draft soon.
>
> The dispatch chairs also asked me for some proposed charter text if we
> were to spin up a working group for this topic.  Here's that text.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bron.
>
> Serialising Extended Data About Times and Events (SEDATE)
> ----
>
> RFC3339 defines a format that can reliably express an instant in time,
> either in UTC or in a local time along with the offset against UTC, however
> datetime data often has additional context, such as the timezone or
> calendar system that was in use when that instant was recorded.
> Particularly when using times for interval, recurrence, or offset
> calculations, it's necessary to know the context in which the timepoint
> exists.
>
> It is valuable to have a serialisation format which retains this context
> and can reliably round-trip the additional context to systems which
> understand it, via intermediate systems which only need to know about the
> instant in time.
>
> The TC39 working group at ECMA have developed a format which is a good
> basis for this work.
>
> It is anticipated that this document would be a companion to RFC3339
> rather than a replacement, embedding an un-altered RFC3339 instant along
> with the contextual data.
>
> It is also within scope for this group to consider a minor update to
> RFC3339 to allow larger than 4 digit signed years, to enable representing
> times further into the past and future.
>
> Once this work is done it is anticipated that this working group will be
> short-lived, and once the one or two documents are published the working
> group will close down.
>
> Milestones:
> * April 2021: Adopt draft describing a serialisation format for extended
> datetimes.
> * July 2021: Submit the serialisation document to the IESG.
>
> --
>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>   [e-mail]
>
>
>
> --
>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>   [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
>
>
>