>>> John C Klensin <[email protected]> schrieb am 19.10.2022 um 22:36 in >>> Nachricht <8ED6029F05884D21580EA2AF@PSB>:
[...] > On the other hand, 3339 contains references to ISO 8601:1988 > and, for that matter, ISO 8601:2000 and at least the former is > rather close to normative. So, give the availability (or last You won't like this type of comment, but isn't a reference to a standard, that is not available anymore, equivalent to referring to no standard? I did not inspect ISO standards, but for any evolving standard I'd expect that the previous versions should be derivable from the current one; otherwise it's just nonsense. > thereof) of those two specs at any price, a reference to either > 3339 is essentially a belief that you can trust Graham and Chris > and their reading of that spec in 2002 and/or the reading of > people like me who have copies of the 1988 document around and > who might be persuaded to open them. Thin ice either way. Sorry again (not intending to get religious), but it reminds me of reading the Mormon's bible some long time ago: Basically it says that only a fery few selected ones know the true text, and those true texts have to be hidden from public, but still you have to believe that chosen few that they are telling the truth about the text they know solely. Why does that remonind me of that old ISO standard? ;-) Regards, Ulrich > >>> or at least avoid future extensions >>> with the same syntax but different definitions. >> >> Much better. > > best, > john > > _______________________________________________ > ntp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
