Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues

["Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[e-mail]>]

I am OK with option 2

Bert Wijnen 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]Namens
> Sharon Chisholm
> Verzonden: woensdag 7 mei 2008 15:31
> Aan: David B Harrington; [e-mail]; Eliot
> Lear
> CC: [e-mail]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> Issues
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> If there is no objection to option 2 then I will make the change and
> publish the updated draft.
> 
> Sharon 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:06 AM
> To: David B Harrington; [e-mail]; Eliot Lear
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> Issues
> 
> Hi
> 
> Just to close this off. It seems we are converging on not adding the ISO
> reference but just the RFC. (Note the RFC references the ISO
> specification and attempts to remove some ambiguities). Just to clarify
> what people want to do
> 
> 1) Keep both references
> 2) Just have a reference to RFC3339
> 3) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4 and appendix A
> 4) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4
> 5) Just have a reference to RFC339 appendix A
> 
> Sharon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netconFrom [e-mail]  Thu May  8 13:05:02 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE743A6858;
	Thu,  8 May 2008 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CA33A6A54
	for <[e-mail]>; Thu,  8 May 2008 13:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.924
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.675, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 2ToIM6xP-Gsy for <[e-mail]>;
	Thu,  8 May 2008 13:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.versatel.net (relay.versatel.net [62.250.3.110])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 510B53A6858
	for <[e-mail]>; Thu,  8 May 2008 13:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 33861 invoked from network); 8 May 2008 20:04:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO bwMedion) (87.215.199.34)
	by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 8 May 2008 20:04:56 -0000
From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[e-mail]>
To: "Sharon Chisholm" <[e-mail]>,
	"David B Harrington" <[e-mail]>,
	<[e-mail]>, "Eliot Lear" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 22:05:00 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Importance: Normal
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss	Issues
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

I am OK with option 2

Bert Wijnen 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]Namens
> Sharon Chisholm
> Verzonden: woensdag 7 mei 2008 15:31
> Aan: David B Harrington; [e-mail]; Eliot
> Lear
> CC: [e-mail]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> Issues
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> If there is no objection to option 2 then I will make the change and
> publish the updated draft.
> 
> Sharon 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:06 AM
> To: David B Harrington; [e-mail]; Eliot Lear
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> Issues
> 
> Hi
> 
> Just to close this off. It seems we are converging on not adding the ISO
> reference but just the RFC. (Note the RFC references the ISO
> specification and attempts to remove some ambiguities). Just to clarify
> what people want to do
> 
> 1) Keep both references
> 2) Just have a reference to RFC3339
> 3) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4 and appendix A
> 4) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4
> 5) Just have a reference to RFC339 appendix A
> 
> Sharon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of David B Harrington
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:28 PM
> To: [e-mail]; 'Eliot Lear'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> Issues
> 
> I believe we should follow RFC3339 section 4.4
> 
> David Harrington
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:44 AM
> > To: Eliot Lear
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> 
> > Issues
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > > Hi Sharon,
> > > 
> > > This comment is largely bureaucratic:
> > > 
> > > > Proposed Edits
> > > > --------------
> > > >
> > > > A. In section 2.1.1, for both instances and in section
> > 2.2.1 Replace
> > > >      This parameter is of type dateTime.
> > > > With
> > > >      This parameter is of type dateTime and compliant to
> > [RFC3339] and
> > > > [ISO.8601.1988].
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > RFC 3339 specifically uses a subset of ISO.8601.1988.  As this 
> > > discussion illustrates it is possible to construct times that are 
> > > compliant with the latter and non-compliant with the
> > former.  I believe
> > > that ISO.8601.1988 is a superset of RFC 3339.  If you wish
> > compliance
> > > with "both", my recommendation would be to specify only
> > ISO.8601.1988.  
> > > This would meet Juergen's requirement of being able to specify an 
> > > unqualified timezone.
> > > 
> > > ALTERNATIVELY, you could require times to be in
> > ISO.8601.1988 format, as
> > > specified in Appendix A of RFC 3339. 
> > > 
> > > Pointing at two standards covering the precise same
> > specification is
> > > just asking for a poke in the eye.
> > 
> > Good bureaucratic comment. Reading section 4.4 or RFC 3339, I should 
> > probably shut up and be fine with requiring a timezone to be known
> by
> > a conforming device and then we can perhaps go with the RFC 3339 
> > subset.
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > -- 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf


[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of David B Harrington
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:28 PM
> To: [e-mail]; 'Eliot Lear'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> Issues
> 
> I believe we should follow RFC3339 section 4.4
> 
> David Harrington
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:44 AM
> > To: Eliot Lear
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss
> 
> > Issues
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > > Hi Sharon,
> > > 
> > > This comment is largely bureaucratic:
> > > 
> > > > Proposed Edits
> > > > --------------
> > > >
> > > > A. In section 2.1.1, for both instances and in section
> > 2.2.1 Replace
> > > >      This parameter is of type dateTime.
> > > > With
> > > >      This parameter is of type dateTime and compliant to
> > [RFC3339] and
> > > > [ISO.8601.1988].
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > RFC 3339 specifically uses a subset of ISO.8601.1988.  As this 
> > > discussion illustrates it is possible to construct times that are 
> > > compliant with the latter and non-compliant with the
> > former.  I believe
> > > that ISO.8601.1988 is a superset of RFC 3339.  If you wish
> > compliance
> > > with "both", my recommendation would be to specify only
> > ISO.8601.1988.  
> > > This would meet Juergen's requirement of being able to specify an 
> > > unqualified timezone.
> > > 
> > > ALTERNATIVELY, you could require times to be in
> > ISO.8601.1988 format, as
> > > specified in Appendix A of RFC 3339. 
> > > 
> > > Pointing at two standards covering the precise same
> > specification is
> > > just asking for a poke in the eye.
> > 
> > Good bureaucratic comment. Reading section 4.4 or RFC 3339, I should 
> > probably shut up and be fine with requiring a timezone to be known
> by
> > a conforming device and then we can perhaps go with the RFC 3339 
> > subset.
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > -- 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf