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

To Zahed's point, I suggest replacing the second paragraph with something like this:

Particularly when using times for interval, recurrence, or offset calculations,
it is necessary to know the context in which the timepoint exists. It would be
valuable to have a standard serialisation text format for this contextual data.
This working group will develop and publish a format meeting that requirement,
subject to the additional constraints described below.

Concur with Zahed Sarker's observation.

Can we please add some sentences to explicitly say what the working group will be working on? The current text (as I read) says - there is a need for the "companion format" and then continues on what the working group will not do.

My fellow ADs seem to have already covered the main points, so I don't have much to add.

I see we got a "text format" to describe the contextual data, but perhaps we should
also describe the existing RFC 3339 format as a "text format" for clarity.

It probably goes without saying that we don't expect systems that don't understand the
added contextual fields to be able to "reliably extract the instant in time" for instants
in time that are not actually representable in the RFC 3339 format (and would, e.g., require
more than four year digits).

As a nit, I might s/serialisation text/text serialisation/

I am not sure whether the question needs to be settled now vs at some hypothetical future
rechartering event, but the concerns raised earlier about the need to pay 336 CHF for access to
(current) versions of ISO 8601 seem like they would come into play if the potential for
a 3339bis solidifies.

The charter mentions ISO 8601 twice.
Should it be clear, each time, about which revision it refers to?

Is there any relationship of this work to a standard binary format for dates?  E.g., CBOR (RFC 7049) and RFC 8943 define CBOR equivalents of the RFC 3339 date string.  Hence, should this work also consider defining a binary (CBOR) tag/format for the  new date strings proposed here, and if so, should that work be done in this WG, or in the CBOR WGs?