Re: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications

Making small changes like this, especially when the reason is "to
improve security", can _usually_ be made at the last minute.  I
would start asking Ned now, but I suspect it wont be a big deal
even after IESG approval.

-derek

NOTE that without this change we'd have to change both MSGFMT and PDIF
to emphasize the fixed-case issue.

"Carr, Wayne" <[email protected]> writes:

> I didn't realize from the recent status that it was that far along.  I agree
> it shouldn't be changed.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Day [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:01 PM
> > To: Carr, Wayne; 'Graham Klyne'
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications
> > 
> > 
> > datetime has been approved by the IESG:
> > http://www2.ietf.org/IESG/Announcements/draft-ietf-impp-datetime.ann
> > 
> > but it has not yet been processed by the RFC editor, so it's 
> > in a funny
> > process limbo at the moment.
> > 
> > When it comes out of that limbo for the authors' final 
> > review, it would be a
> > Very Bad Idea to make the change proposed (eliminating the 
> > lower-case t and
> > z) unless we get agreement in advance from Ned Freed, who was the IESG
> > reviewer. He'd be the best judge of whether this change is a 
> > big deal.  [My
> > personal hunch is that what the IESG approved is what goes 
> > into the RFC in
> > this case, but I could well be wrong.]
> > 
> > --Mark
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] 
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> > > Carr, Wayne
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:52 PM
> > > To: 'Graham Klyne'; Carr, Wayne
> > > Cc: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications
> > >
> > >
> > > It's already in the PIDF draft.  I thought the conclusion 
> > before was that
> > > datetime should change too if there was still the opportunity to
> > > change it.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:36 AM
> > > > To: Carr, Wayne
> > > > Cc: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: datetime - was -> RE: status of wg specifications
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We discussed this a short while ago, without clear
> > > > conclusion.  datetime is
> > > > being used in specifications other than CPIM.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever the outcome for the datetime draft, I think it would
> > > > be sensible
> > > > for the PIDF draft to specify/emphasize that "T" and "Z" in
> > > > datetime values
> > > > must be restricted to upper case.  I believe this will be
> > > > covered in the
> > > > latest PIDF draft.
> > > >
> > > > #g
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > At 07:56 AM 5/14/02 -0700, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> > > > >In DATETIME, there was the problem that it allowed use of
> > > > either 'T' or 't'
> > > > >and 'Z' or 'z'.  That makes it incompatible with the XML
> > > > Schema dateTime.
> > > > >Removing one sentence in the ID is all that it would take to
> > > > make it so only
> > > > >'T' and 'Z' is allowed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------
> > > > Graham Klyne
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> > discussions, please]
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
> 

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       [email protected]             www.ihtfp.com


  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]