Re: [netmod] IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Sent: 07 April 2022 16:30

Hi Juergen,

On Apr 7, 2022, at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 05:49:26PM -0700, IETF Secretariat wrote:

The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis has been changed to "WG
Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" from "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" by Kent
Watsen:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/


Dear chairs,

given recent discussions around ip addresses, I am not sure about the
consensus

I just moved the state back so it doesn't suggest consensus.


 and perhaps we should consider to name the new date and time
types differently, e.g.

 date -> date-with-zone
 date-no-zone -> date
 time -> time-with-zone
 time-no-zone -> time

to avoid similar discussions in the future and to adopt a naming style
where optional elements are reflected in the name instead of using a
naming style where the absence of optional parts is reflected in the
name.

Here's what is intuitive to me:

- date YYYY-MM-DD
- time hh:mm:ss

Effectively your proposal.  I question if "date-with-zone" or "time-with-zone" are ever needed.    Certainly not "date-with-zone", as there is no way to reason about it.  As for "time-with-zone", I'm suspicious, as I've never seen it disconnected from a "date" before.

<tp>
I see time with zone and no date.  It is needed whenever monitoring or some other operational requirement is being set up to occur at the same time every day (which I see as a very common requirement).

You can find it in e.g. I2NSF-consumer-facing (which I keep being told has been around  for years before being brought to the IETF).
 
Tom Petch

Kent // contributor





/js

--
Jürgen Schönwälder              Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>