Hi Juergen,
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 05:49:26PM -0700, IETF Secretariat wrote:
>>
>> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis has been changed to "WG
>> Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up" from "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" by Kent
>> Watsen:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/
>>
>
> Dear chairs,
>
> given recent discussions around ip addresses, I am not sure about the
> consensus
I just moved the state back so it doesn't suggest consensus.
> and perhaps we should consider to name the new date and time
> types differently, e.g.
>
> date -> date-with-zone
> date-no-zone -> date
> time -> time-with-zone
> time-no-zone -> time
>
> to avoid similar discussions in the future and to adopt a naming style
> where optional elements are reflected in the name instead of using a
> naming style where the absence of optional parts is reflected in the
> name.
Here's what is intuitive to me:
- date YYYY-MM-DD
- time hh:mm:ss
Effectively your proposal. I question if "date-with-zone" or "time-with-zone"
are ever needed. Certainly not "date-with-zone", as there is no way to
reason about it. As for "time-with-zone", I'm suspicious, as I've never seen
it disconnected from a "date" before.
Kent // contributor
>
> /js
>
> --
> Jürgen Schönwälder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
