Subject: Re: [calsify] draft-ietf-calext-rscale-00.txt Document Shepherd review

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:01:24 -0400

Hi Donald,
Thanks for your review - comments below. Changes have been applied to my 
working copy and I will push out a new version of the draft with those 
changes later in the week, or once follow-up discussion has concluded.

--On October 30, 2014 at 12:04:02 AM -0400 Donald Eastlake 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Section 1: I found "... has never been formally used" to be a little
> odd. Should it say "... has never been actually used"?  I'm not sure
> what "formal use" means other than including it in the formal
> syntax...

I think I will just drop "formally" completely.

> Section 2: First occurrence of "YYYYMMHH" should prsumably be
> "YYYYMMDD".

Fixed.

> Section 4.1: Would it be correct and worth while for clarity to say
> that "0L" indicates a leap month before the first regular month?

So RFC 5545 "informally" defines monthnum to the range 1..12:

       monthnum    = 1*2DIGIT       ;1 to 12

I believe we determined there is never a case where a leap month precedes 
the first regular month of a year, so 0L is never used, and I don't believe 
the ICU library has a way to specify that either. Gregory can probably 
confirm this is the case as he is more familiar with ICU (and maybe Ken 
since he has also done an implementation). If that is confirmed, then maybe 
we can add the following text to the "2." list item in Section 4.1:

    Note, there is never a case of a leap month preceding the first regular
    month in a year, and consequently this specification provides no way to
    indicate such a leap month.

> First line of the last paragraph before the Section 7.1 heading: I
> think it is 'an "RSCALE" ', as used elsewhere in the draft, not 'a
> "RSCALE" '.

Fixed.

> Section 9: Probably better to say the slightly more general "This
> document requires no IANA actions."

Fixed.

> Appendix A: I think it would be good if it was a little clearer just
> which draft version the change sets refer to.

Fixed.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:34:13 -0500

On 11/02/2014 10:01 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Donald,
> Thanks for your review - comments below. Changes have been applied to 
> my working copy and I will push out a new version of the draft with 
> those changes later in the week, or once follow-up discussion has 
> concluded.
>
> I believe we determined there is never a case where a leap month 
> precedes the first regular month of a year, so 0L is never used, and I 
> don't believe the ICU library has a way to specify that either. 
> Gregory can probably confirm this is the case as he is more familiar 
> with ICU (and maybe Ken since he has also done an implementation). If 
> that is confirmed, then maybe we can add the following text to the 
> "2." list item in Section 4.1:
>

As Cyrus indicated, my understanding is that a leap month is never 
inserted prior to the first month of the year.  All of the luini-solar 
calendars supported by ICU have the leap month inserted after months 
2-11, depending on the calendar and year.  The insertion point for the 
Chinese leap month roams between 2-11, and all of the other calendars 
have the insertion point fixed somewhere between 2-11.  If there was to 
be a leap month prior to the first month of the year, I would imagine 
that it would be specified as the number of the last month of a non-leap 
year followed by the "L" suffix (e.g. 12L).

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

---

From: Gregory Yakushev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:02:00 +0000

> year followed by the "L" suffix (e.g. 12L).

I also confirm Cyrus and Kens points. There are many many calendaring
systems in the world, and it is not feasible to cover all of them with this
spec. What we aim here is to cover most widely used and best understood
systems, those supported by ICU in our case, and these systems cannot have
a leap month before the first month.

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

Grisha
Software Engineer @ Google

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:33:19 -0500

Hi,

Thanks for your responses. I'm happy with them, especially given the
observation that should there ever be a leap month before the first
regular month in a year it could be denoted as a leap month after the
last regular month of the previous year.

I'll have to check with my co-Chair but I think that when a draft
revised as indicated is uploaded, we can initiate a WG Last Call.
Unfortunately, we are in the refractory period before the IETF meeting
next week. As a result, draft postings is currently disabled. They
should be re-enabled Monday morning next week although sometimes they
don't get around to it until later in the day.

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