Re: syntaxes-10 notes

Hallvard,

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Syntaxes-10 has this new text in
> 
>>3.3.13.  Generalized Time
> 
> 
>>  The above ABNF allows character strings which do not represent valid
>>  dates (in the Gregorian calendar) and/or valid times (e.g., February
>>  31, 1994).  Such character strings SHOULD be considered invalid for
>>  this syntax.
> 
> 
> I just realized that dates predating the Gregorian calendar are
> not Gregorian, so the above can be read as implying pre-Gregorian
> dates SHOULD be considered invalid.  Was that intentional?

Yes. I expect GeneralizedTime was only ever intended to represent modern dates
in protocols, rather than to suit the needs of historians and archeoastronomers.
It seems rather odd to me to use a format with embedded time zone information
to represent the dates and times of events occurring before the introduction,
in the nineteenth century, of standardized time and time zones.

 > And if
> not, is it worth worrying about?  If so it might be simplest to
> just drop "(in the Gregorian calendar)" after all.
> 
> 
>>4.1.  General Considerations
> 
> 
>>  Servers MAY implement the wordMatch and keywordMatch matching rules,
>>  but SHOULD implement the other matching rules in Section 4.2.
> 
> 
> I would s/but/and/.

Okay.

> 
> 
>>Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2252
> 
> 
> The appendix should mention that uniqueMemberMatch now differs
> significantly from the X.500 variant.

I'll add a suitable note to Appendix B.

Regards,
Steven
>