Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The WG consensus was broad. SEDATE is not the biggest WG, but there were enough
active participants during its development that agreed the I-D was ready to
proceed down the road to satisfy both chairs. Several of the participants are
implementers. Additionally, some of the WG participants also participate in
other standards bodies where this work is considered.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

Only a single contentious issue emerged. We found an interoperability problem
(a special interpretation of what -0000 means) with the way that RFC 3339
handles timestamps that do not want to provide a hint about time zone offsets.
This issue was resolved through booth discussions on the mailing list and at
IETF 114 and IETF 115.

Discussion of this document took place on the Serialising Extended Data About
Times and Events (SEDATE) Working Group mailing list (mailto:sedate@ietf.org),
which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sedate/.

Source for this draft and its accompanying issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-sedate/draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Several participants in SEDATE have indicated that they will be implementing
the changes in this draft. Those implementations are both in commercial
software, open source software and changes to libraries that manage
date/timestamps.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews
took place.

draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended is also related to work going on in TICTOC,
CBOR and CALEXT. Some of the discussions in SEDATE have been cross-posted into
those groups and many active participants who agreed to consensus in SEDATE are
also active participants in TICTOC, CBOR and CALEXT.

Mike Douglass was our liaison to ISO/TC154. He last reported to the working
group at IETF 115 and the notes to that session are in:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/minutes-115-sedate-202211081500-00

We also had extensive interaction with the ECMA group TEMPORAL. Ujjwal acted as
our interface to ECMA and his last report to the SEDATE working group is
available at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sedate/omfM_EZo-MUOXzEoypkfLlax-po/

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

SEDATE was very narrowly chartered to update RFC3339 in a fully
backward-compatible way to address a single discrepancy in expressing an
instant in time, either in UTC or in a local time along with the offset against
UTC.  There is no formal expert review criteria for the IETF profile of ISO
8601.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC
8342][5]?

draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Figure 3 of the current draft is the appropriate ABNF grammar extension needed
to implement the change described in the draft. It is adapted from Section 5.6
of RFC3339. The constants ALPHA and DIGIT are adopted from Appendix B.1 of
RFC5234. The very short extension to the rule date-time-ext has been reviewed
by participants in the SEDATE working group.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and
addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?

In the Applications and Real-Time Area, dates, times and timestamps are
explicitly identified as tricky to get correct. SEDATE used both experts in
dattime formats as well as calendar and email implementers to ensure that
draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended is backward compatible with RFC3339 while
addressing the narrow issue in the charter. The document shepherd believes that
the issues identified in the Internet Area, Operations and Management Area,
Routing Area, Security Area and Transport Area do not apply to the limited
scope of this standard.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of
RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

PS is the intended status. PS is the proper status for this on-the-wire
protocol. PS is the status of RFC3339 to which this document relates.  Yes, the
datatracker state attributes correctly reflect PS.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To the
best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not,
explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to
publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, the document shepherd has personally verified with the authors that they
have met the IPR disclosure obligations in [BCP79].

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, the document shepherd has personally verified that all authors are willing
to be listed as such.

There are two authors listed on the draft.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
[idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some
incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are 0 errors, 0 flaws, 1 warning and 3 comments generated by I-D nits.

There are six instances of warnings about lines too long. These seem to relate
to non-ASCII characters In UTF-8 encoding (for instance in the name of an
academic institution).

There are six instances of lines with non-ASCII characters. These also seem to
relate to non-ASCII characters In UTF-8 encoding (for instance in the name of
an academic institution).

There are two warnings related to references:

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1305
     (Obsoleted by RFC 5905)

The reference is intended to illustrate the history and motivations for the
date/time format as used in NTP.

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2822
     (Obsoleted by RFC 5322)

The reference is intended to illustrate the history and motivations for the
date/time format as used in the Internet Message format. The reference to
RFC5322 is also included.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Both WG chairs believe that the references are fine.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?

All normative references are to RFCs. There are informative references that
point to documents from ITU=T and ISO which are not freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list
them.

There are no such references in draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If
so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no such references in draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This draft updates RFC3339. The problem statement in the Abstract Introduction
makes clear what the problem being addressed is and how this draft applies to
RFC3339. The relationship between this draft and RFC3339 is also clearly marked
in the Datatracker and on the title page of the draft.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each
newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document shepherd reviewed the assignment for consistency with the body of
the I-D.

The shepherd also confirmed the following:
- All aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
  associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
- Any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
- Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
  allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please
include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There is a single registry created by this draft: the Timestamp Suffix Tag Keys
registry. The registration policy [based on RFC8126] is "Specification
Required" for permanent entries, and "Expert Review" for provisional ones. In
the second case, the expert is instructed to ascertain that a basic
specification does exist, even if not complete or published yet.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
Back