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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

"should now" is fine with me.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 8:22 PM
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Mark McFadden
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-
> extended-10: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> thank you for this COMMENT.
> 
> 
> > On 2023-10-19, at 12:35, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended-10: No Objection
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for this document.  I only have one question/comment:
> >
> > (1) p 7, sec 2.3.  Notes
> >
> >   Note also that the fact that [ISO8601:2000] and later do not allow
> >   -00:00 as a local offset reduces the level of interoperability that
> >   can be achieved in using this feature; the present specification
> >   however does not formally deprecate this syntax.  With the update to
> >   RFC 3339, the local offset Z can be used in its place.
> >
> > I was wonder why this is "can be used" and not "SHOULD be used", or if that
> is
> > too strong then "should be used".
> 
> We are in the middle of a section about updating RFC 3339, in a note about
> what the update means…
> If this really should become a SHOULD, it will need to be part of the update to
> RFC 3339.  This is not the result we were converging on.
> 
> > I.e., I appreciate why we may want to still
> > allow the old format now, but shouldn't this document push a little harder
> > towards getting everyone to use the Z format?
> 
> People get difficult if you change their conformance posture in the middle of
> their dancing competition.  So I’m all for replacing “can” by “should now”
> (essentially turning this note into a “quality of implementation” comment;
> which I’d think is also what the WG actually wants), but I don’t think we can go
> much beyond that.
> 
> Now
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-sedate/draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-
> extended/pull/64
> 
> Grüße, Carsten