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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

> On Apr 7, 2022, at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder <[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.


Kent // contributor


 

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