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

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-10

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Mark McFadden for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

## Section 1.2 (mostly nits)

The example of New York time would benefit of adding "in the USA" and "in 2023"
(the latter would allow a better aging -- who knows ?).

Should ICAO be expanded ?

Should "San Francisco" be qualified as in "San Francisco, California" ?

## Backward compatibility

As I am not familiar with RFC 3339, I wonder whether the new syntax could break
some legacy RFC 3339 implementations (including parsing libraries). Were there
some tests ?