On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:31 AM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 > > +1 > 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. > > Perhaps the clue as to why these problems were not discovered until now. > Kent // contributor > > > > Andy > > > /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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
