Re: [Jcardcal] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 3/20/14 5:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> (This may be more than a nit): In the ABNF in section 3.6.5, where is
>>> the implementer supposed to go to find the definition of 'zone'? (Or
>>> the other production names?) I think _this_ chunk of ABNF (as opposed
>>> to that compiled in the appendix) is intended to be normative, yes?
>>> FWIW, it's not reflected in Appendix B.
>> Indeed, there are some shortcomings here. For the
>> year/month/day/hour/minute/second production names I can add an explicit
>> reference to ISO.8601.2004 Section 2.2. The zone designator is only
>> marginally mentioned in ISO.8601.2004 Section 4.3.2.
>>
>> The exact date format is not reflected in Appendix B because the
>> Appendix does not intend to capture the structure of each different
>> property type.
>>
>> As the two jcardcal drafts are my first rfc documents, I am not quite
>> sure when its a good idea to make the ABNF normative. I could probably
>> declare it informative by virtue of the reference to ISO 8601 and
>> RFC5545. The ABNF was added in draft 08, in alignment with the changes
>> we've made in jcard (rfc7095). There was a lot of discussion on the
>> jcardcal list on the date formats and it became clear that the specific
>> variations of ISO 8601 2001 and 2004 used in iCalendar and vCard make it
>> hard to grasp. By explicitly mentioning the date format I wanted to
>> counteract.
>>
>> I'd appreciate some feedback on how to further handle this issue.
> Please work with your AD on this one.
> It's a little detail, not a big problem, but we do need to be clear 
> about what the grammar actually is.

Hmm....I wonder why neither RFC 5545 nor this document reference RFC 
3339 instead of ISO 8601? That would get you all of the ABNF you need.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]