IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322

heather flanagan <hlflanagan@gmail.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hlflanagan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DDE3A17A1; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 AxD77ZNB2Qq4; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 178B73A17A9; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id em21-20020a17090b0155b029014e204a81e6so3304006pjb.1; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version; bh=kBwTJd+dF5U9Mzd2fIreMppj7xhJkpw7PbTg4G2dAMY=; b=nSy+GHaI7zVSHpMJ66YsA8Q1qYt30TdcGzjShysnfU5MFDZjqhiNpE5Hm+aacsxq0y VDbfXgDNddqrGzGkANbGvgOtNkr0k3poUXSQoIpmROrssh+Op2DNZxrKMEFHIVlaGQVg PBVzfsMmmFbQTZ5VV1tKm8CtkwWxKjGuqC3s3U772hik+6Oxi8hSwK2OVFwFhcSHn7iH RhE6/QoRnBNjCZ2jiGlVNFfolyMLOzxdeuZ1KiYcTNEZaQCZnE7GxjJkDkbrzQOE8fKC D6EGVj28g+o6CwrtRBz9aq+xk58tKq9Xgb2Ih7/ad/TeLzmCcudfHx0JOniSTezqlDc5 qgTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version; bh=kBwTJd+dF5U9Mzd2fIreMppj7xhJkpw7PbTg4G2dAMY=; b=W6mtC+mpLxde+7r25Vze5HDN7MOkfXxDYoRZqlBajAsDfn979Vy+PDzGLqTPme5267 f5yH8WgIOn5mv45oP4u+xvOBTONEUIG9Hr4Qvq96DKbas3DDL0ShuBeH+0Y40y3ddl7+ f5wcJjWM0kU7d3bchTqJFSjfXDCrUT12kDgYZAC6O8jAOOGw/tdFMV9RW+AjHMskxxox Fi+FV6qzoWu5Asf7ZxgeaP7+JDdeQHdfSoHlbZ9rxogEAmsjqd9I/4TqzhqLbCCzP1rD t8Sm/GbIKvGR5ciayWtTSz/TCCSps402DraZMQeFX2Ai/7k/TgaOfkCCJzKQbk4tUz+N QjJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532u7aEbP3I7oyjfCaOZfPcGjKz/Qw+CFDDiwrIU7masmac37Ph+ fPxxNhvrpLT5dTusN/2OiaVcSyJG7t4G4A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyx2tceQyEbhIdh5oHHiTchNV+HgfT0nNpXlV8b+9mKJIwk2gPRM8bmjHqjLimdlwy4epzZwg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ec09:: with SMTP id l9mr4644572pjy.141.1618419914609; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.198.42.50] (c-71-231-216-10.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [71.231.216.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u7sm31294pjx.8.2021.04.14.10.05.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:05:07 -0700
From: heather flanagan <hlflanagan@gmail.com>
To: "=?utf-8?Q?art=40ietf.org?=" <art@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?saag=40ietf.org?=" <saag@ietf.org>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <9dcae7aa-369c-401f-87fc-dabb581a1f3a@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB6248D9E5355642A44DDDA5F4A04E9@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAyEnSMBdXCA0EvgR79P_1gi15pAPfeyu_HgGqgMjWxRP8sxKg@mail.gmail.com> <C7B5DB45-F0A1-491C-AD4E-91F67C8C182E@cisco.com> <B3D690C21848AF07EC92577F@PSB> <fd0cf01a-af1f-4683-bc9a-a5c12f744b4a@Spark> <AM7PR07MB6248D9E5355642A44DDDA5F4A04E9@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 9dcae7aa-369c-401f-87fc-dabb581a1f3a@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="607720c8_412d9f39_3b2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/-d1IPzhBe3r8XQ9jQHBh9eO4q_Q>
Subject: Re: [saag] [art] Date formats: RFC3339 vs. RFC 5322
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:05:22 -0000


On Apr 14, 2021, 9:14 AM -0700, 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, wrote:
>
> I’m going to +1 John’s advice as well, and suggest that if/when this group comes to a consensus on the topic, ask the RFC Editor to consider including the guidance in the style guide.
>
> <tp>
> which I note is not the format that we are allowed to use in an RFC when it comes to references:-(

Ah, yes, the format of bibliographic references is its own special beastie. That’s driven by the Chicago Manual of Style format. I’d suggest letting that particular sleeping dog alone, and focus on what should be standard in the body of the document for the material targeted to humans. If you really want another thing to poke at, complete the discussion with consensus on what should be standard for machine-readable (I honestly don’t know if there’s already consensus on that or not).

Heather

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email