Re: [dispatch] [Sedate] WG Review: Serialising Extended Data About Times and Events (sedate)

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021, at 02:43, [e-mail] <mailto:ned%2Bdispatch%40mrochek.com> wrote:
> The main problem is that the charter specifies that a variant of RFC 3339 is to
> be embedded in this new specification, with no consideration given to the
> alternate approach of incorporating either RFC 3339 or an RFC 3339bis by
> reference.

I take a lot of responsibility for this - and it's this way *because* of the feedback in DISPATCH last time, which was "don't try messing with RFC3339".  But I think maybe you also looked at the draft as it was proposed back then because - again - I didn't push hard enough to have an actual draft uploaded which specified basically that this would look something like:

"RFC3339{bis}-point-in-time{extended context}" (exact encoding TBD)

And that we wouldn't mess with 3339 OR we would BIS 3339 for the first part, and produce another document which referenced RFC3339 or RFC3339bis as the definition for the point-in-time part.

This is how I understand the goals of this intended group to be - and if that's not adequately represented in the proposed charter text then I would welcome clarifying edits!

Thanks,

Bron.


--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]