[Sedate] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-10: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this easy-to-read document.

## COMMENTS

### Section 3.2, misused 2119 keyword

                                                    See
   [BCP178] for a discussion about the danger of experimental keys
   leaking out to general production and why that MUST be prevented.

That MUST is far afield from what RFC 2119 thinks it should be used for. Seems
like it should be "must".

### Section 3.4 examples are silent on handling the "critical" mark

Section 3.4 has two sets of examples. Each set is a pair, with the same
timestamp, but in one the tag is marked critical and in the other, it isn't.
The text doesn't say anything about the difference in handling the critical vs.
non-critical versions. I can see why you'd want the two versions -- IF you were
going to use them in the explanatory text, to illuminate the use of the
critical mark. But you don't. Seems like you should either talk about the
difference in how they're handled or just supply one version.

## LESS-THAN-NITS

Note that AFAICT every instance of “note that” in this document could be
deleted without loss of clarity, but this is purely a personal style matter.
(OK the one in §3.4 does serve the purpose of letting the sentence not begin
with "-00:00" which would be a little jarring.)