Serialising Extended Data About Times and Events
charter-ietf-sedate-02

I'm jealous that you've managed to get such a short and clear charter thought the process :-P

Thank you Francesca for your explanation at a previous telechat about the lack of WG-forming BoF.

Some comments below:

1) may be the following is perfect English, but I cannot understand "can reliably round-trip the additional context" , is there a way to rephrase it ?

2) like other AD, I would prefer to reference an IETF draft rather than an ECMA one

3) "It is anticipated" looks ambiguous to me, either the WG has leeway to decide or the WG is forced to follow this. The "anticipated" allows both. Perhaps use 'it is within the WG scope to..;' ?

4) "larger than 4 digit signed years" should this number be signed ?

5) "larger than 4 digit signed years" isn't this dangerous to change such a well-known format ? I can easily imagine many pieces of SW stopping to work... While it is a minor spec change, I am concerned that this 'minor change' could have huge impact. I sincerely hope that the WG (if formed) will not go along this path.

6) s/Ecma/ECMA/ ;-)

I think that if you’re leaving in the text about the document ("The TC39 working group at ECMA have developed a format which is a good basis for this work.”) then you should specifically point to the draft version.  Otherwise, the text gives the impression that the starting point will be an ECMA document (not an I-D).


[nit] The first sentence is very long.  Suggestion: start a second sentence with "However, ..."

   Once this work is done it is anticipated that this working group will be
   short-lived, and once the one or two documents are published the working group
   will close down.

We might want to clarify whether "once the documents are published the WG will close
down" is a requirement or is also covered by the "it is anticipated" in the first clause.

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools, so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need
to let me know what you did with these suggestions.

"RFC3339", paragraph 1, nit:
- in UTC or in a local time along with the offset against UTC, however datetime
-                                                            ^ ^
+ in UTC or in a local time, along with the offset against UTC. However, datetime
+                          +                                  ^ ^      +

"RFC3339", paragraph 1, nit:
- interval, recurrence, or offset calculations, it's necessary to know the
-                                                 ^
+ interval, recurrence, or offset calculations, it is necessary to know the
+                                                 ^^

"I", paragraph 1, nit:
- It is valuable to have a serialisation format which retains this context and
-                                               ^ ^^^
+ It is valuable to have a serialisation format that retains this context and
+                                               ^ ^^

"I", paragraph 1, nit:
- via intermediate systems which only need to know about the instant in time.
-                          ^ ^^^
+ via intermediate systems that only need to know about the instant in time.
+                          ^ ^^

"T", paragraph 1, nit:
- The TC39 working group at ECMA have developed a format which is a good basis
-                                                        ^ ^^^
+ The TC39 working group at ECMA have developed a format that is a good basis
+                                                        ^ ^^

"I", paragraph 1, nit:
- It is anticipated that this document would be a companion to RFC3339 rather

"I", paragraph 1, nit:
- than a replacement, embedding an un-altered RFC3339 instant along with the
-                                    -                             ---------
- contextual data.
+ RFC3339 rather than a replacement, embedding an unaltered RFC3339 instant along
+ +++++++++++++++
+ with contextual data.
+ +++++

"I", paragraph 1, nit:
- It is also within scope for this group to consider a minor update to RFC3339 to
-                                                                     -----------
- allow larger than 4 digit signed years, to enable representing times further
-                   ^^                                          --------------
- into the past and future.
+ It is also within scope for this working group to consider a minor update to
+                                 ++++++++
+ RFC3339 to allow larger than four-digit signed years, to enable representing
+ +++++++++++                  ^^^^^
+ times further into the past and future.
+ ++++++++++++++

The "Once this work is done it is anticipated ...", is somewhat vague.  It would probably be clearer to say that the WG will work on these one or two items then either recharter or close down?

Rob