[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DateAndTime Erratum
HI,
Instead of ranges of (0..12) and (0..31), I suggest that
we do something more obvious, such as (0 | 1..12).
As (0..12), a reader may quickly look at it and believe
that the range is really (0..11) (that is zero based,
and not 1 based, which would be really bad!)
At 11:45 AM 7/23/2004 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>
>> > > 311 DateAndTimeOrZero
>> > > - Didn't really have proposed resolution or rather we had a
>> > > couple comments after the proposed resolution
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Since DateAndTime is already used this way (and has been
>> > for a long time) I don't see the value of adding a new TC.
>> > However, it might make sense to see if we could agree on an
>> > erratum for RFC 2579.
>>
>> I agree. See my statement to this effect from Mon, 22 Mar
>> 2004 22:31:31 +0100. If nobody objects, I will submit an errata
>> with the following simple change:
>>
>> OLD:
>> 2 3 month 1..12
>> 3 4 day 1..31
>>
>> NEW:
>> 2 3 month 0..12
>> 3 4 day 0..31
>>
>> For those interested: '0000000000000000'H appears 58 times in the set
>> of published IETF MIB modules. So there is some clear evidence that
>> this "zero" value has been used before without introducing a new TC.
>>
>I can agree with the erratum submission.
>However, this is not something we should just decide on the EntMIB mailing
>list or WG. It is wider. And it does change the spec. So I'd like to at
>least have IESG approval. The risk is that they may suggest a 4 week IETF
>Last Call to make sure we have IETF consensus. After all it is a change
>(in my view a well justified, accaptable, and apparently used in practice)
>to a full STD document.
>
>Bert
>> /js
>>
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
>> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561,
>> 28725 Bremen, Germany
Regards,
/david t. perkins