Subject: Re: [calsify] draft-daboo-icalendar-rscale-04 editorial nits

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 17:28:52 +0100

Hi Ken,
Thanks for your review. I will apply fixes to the WG -00 draft which I am 
working on now.

--On October 3, 2014 at 9:32:04 AM -0400 Ken Murchison 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Section 3, 2nd last sent: This might be more of a regional thing, but
> should "later" be "latter" ?

Fixed.

> Section 3, last sent: Since iCalendar uses ISO weeks, should we say "The
> number of whole [ISO.8601.2004] weeks in a year is either 52 or 53" ?

Well the ISO things refers to how weeks are numbered not actual weeks in a 
year - there are always 52 whole weeks in a year (if you start counting 
from 1st January). I would be willingly to clarify the text with this 
change:

    The number of whole weeks in a year is 52 (though the [ISO.8601.2004]
    week numbering scheme used by iCalendar [RFC5545] can have a numeric
    count up to 53).

> Section 3: para 3: The two items listed seem more like guidelines,
> principles, or rules rather than a procedure.  Should we change "the
> following procedure is used" to "the following principles are followed"
> or "the following rules are used" or some other permutation?

I will use "principles".

> Section, 1st sent: "clients and server" -> "clients and servers"

Fixed.

> Section 11.1, UNICODE.CLDR: Should we use the following URI rather than
> picking a particular release?
> http://www.unicode.org/repos/cldr/tags/latest/common/bcp47/calendar.xml

I have updated that to the latest release. However, I am not sure about 
doing what you suggest given that this is a normative reference. I would 
have thought a "stable" reference is preferred rather than a "moving 
target". It would be good to get some feedback from the 
chairs/ADs/RFC-Editor (or anyone else) on that.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 12:38:53 -0400

On 10/04/2014 12:28 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> Thanks for your review. I will apply fixes to the WG -00 draft which I 
> am working on now.
>
> Well the ISO things refers to how weeks are numbered not actual weeks 
> in a year - there are always 52 whole weeks in a year (if you start 
> counting from 1st January). I would be willingly to clarify the text 
> with this change:
>

Right, I may have over-analyzed this one.  This existing text is 
probably fine, but let's see if anyone else comments.

> I have updated that to the latest release. However, I am not sure 
> about doing what you suggest given that this is a normative reference. 
> I would have thought a "stable" reference is preferred rather than a 
> "moving target". It would be good to get some feedback from the 

That's a good question.  Let's see what the IETF/IAB folks say.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

---

From: Gregory Yakushev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:24:01 +0000

> That's a good question.  Let's see what the IETF/IAB folks say.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but leaning towards a 'moving
target' link. We use this reference to point out that the registry is
maintained externally, and we make no specific assumptions about its
contents in our document. So I don't think there's a strong case for
pointing to a specific version in this particular case.

 Grisha

> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:07:23 -0400

Hi Guys,

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Gregory Yakushev <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> >...
> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but leaning towards a 'moving target'
> link. We use this reference to point out that the registry is maintained
> externally, and we make no specific assumptions about its contents in our
> document. So I don't think there's a strong case for pointing to a specific
> version in this particular case.

That sounds like a moving target link would be OK. I could be
misunderstanding something but I wouldn't describe this as just
pointing out that a registry is externally maintained. If that were
the case, it should be an Informative Reference.

Rather it looks to me like a Normative reference to a registry. It is
in the nature of registries that they change, mostly as new entries
are added but occasionally as old entries are deprecated or an entry
is changed to correct errors or whatever. Unless there was a good
reason to use a frozen specific version of a registry, I would say
that the normal thing it to just refer to the registry as a dynamic
data set.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]