IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philipp Kewisch <kewisch@gmail.com> Thu, 20 March 2014 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <kewisch@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: jcardcal@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jcardcal@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E592E1A0453; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 6w0XIn6FG4TB; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-x229.google.com (mail-bk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3249C1A0448; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id d7so119421bkh.14 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2xG8+uAsDHB9qFaPU0701SWap5zzI2kPcq1+MsRE7yY=; b=JA4SgFxMgFQkwwj1/gYEqLZ0PXy8dF3548qmLSDLtDTQhHC7IvWlx9Vq9LFjX/2vEM L4AkgLZ5L60BDGtQ8/u3zYeKC9ZgwtwhBIhyYhz0Azla8vFXj8qTOYYdUpaz6QzWNh72 IjNDVvUl5FpbOd55vES1vQstHZtZYduiIzhTVeN1Kan6kJlrB7apby2cvhZaOAY53mST XHQa1Qjv0aCNZ5/NEtS/FXoY0B0yzNDTLrC9jgjXRxS2LQHxnBGNW0hkqgYMn2dV1t67 /BWxFpYXvQJUo6eVDed6ETg/x2q0NbwQOiUWQgAPG/HPY7Tp+H/xnIJNnnR4OSfnOVkV j5hQ==
X-Received: by 10.204.78.9 with SMTP id i9mr1635992bkk.40.1395357780506; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.104] (p5DC1549E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.193.84.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oa10sm3463672bkb.14.2014.03.20.16.22.59 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <532B7852.4060104@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:22:58 +0100
From: Philipp Kewisch <kewisch@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/28.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
References: <531F5C0D.5040903@nostrum.com> <532B5066.5050803@gmail.com> <532B69C8.305@nostrum.com> <532B6CFE.9020707@qti.qualcomm.com> <532B73E4.1060101@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <532B73E4.1060101@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jcardcal/UfN3LIXBGCTlXGYYLr-4Jw2R070
Cc: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Philipp Kewisch <kewisch@gmail.com>, jcardcal@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Jcardcal] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09
X-BeenThere: jcardcal@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON data formats for vCard and iCalendar WG <jcardcal.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jcardcal>, <mailto:jcardcal-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jcardcal/>
List-Post: <mailto:jcardcal@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jcardcal-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jcardcal>, <mailto:jcardcal-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:23:13 -0000

On 3/21/14, 12:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/20/14, 4:34 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's a good point. RFC 3339 is, IMHO, nicely clear and tightly
> scoped compared to ISO 8601 (which leaves quite a few options open).
> However, even when referencing RFC 3339 it's important to document all
> the details about various options, such as use of non-UTC time zones
> and fractional seconds.
While rfc3339 is more closely scoped than ISO 8601, there are still
various options that require documenting, which is why I decided to stay
with ISO8601. For consistency with jCard I think it would be unwise to
change the rfc the date format is based now.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email