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

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-10
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S2.2

* I concur with Lars' DISCUSS point.  Seems best to update or not update
  RFC 3339 section 4.3 ("there is no try" :-).

### S4.1

* Consider a sentence or two at the end that calls out the prohibition
  of "." and ".." from the time-zone-part production trailing comment.
  It seems to my uneducated eye that the ABNF actually allow this, so
  the checking would need to be done separately by implementations?

## Nits

### S1.2

* "UTC was designed to be a useful successor for" ->
  "for which UTC was designed to be a useful successor"

### S2.1

* "always was" -> "was always" or even just "has been"