Subject: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:12:18 -0400

Hi

This is one of the discuss topics on the notification draft. This will
potentially result in two changes
  - Additional reference (to point to specifications that indicate how
dateTime provides sufficient precision)
  - Adding a statement, if the working group agrees, that makes
supporting time zone mandatory.

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:25 PM
To: 'Chris Newman'; [email-masked]'
Cc: 'Hector Trevino (htrevino)'; 'Bert Wijnen - IETF'; 'Ersue, Mehmet
(NSN - DE/Muenich)'; 'Dan Romascanu'
Subject: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime

Please reply to this email either indicating that you consider this
issue resolved or by providing additional feedback as to why the
response is not sufficient.

18. Discuss: dateTime (David Ward)
[2008-03-26] ** All of the time references are in "type dateTime" which
is XMLschema speak is "YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss" (although there is no
reference).

Given the output of config events from networking nodes can happen at an
incredible rate, why is it felt that seconds are a satisfactory
granularity? Most vendors are in fact already implementing event down to
the ms. This is critical for fault messages. It is impossible to
understand what is happening on a network node with the granularity of
seconds.

8. dateTime (Chris Newman)

The dateTime XML schema data type makes the timezone optional, in which
case time stamps are ambiguous and non-interoperable.  This document
needs to explicitly require that timezones be present in order to
interoperate.  I observe that dateTime does permit arbitrary fractions
of a second so I do not agree with Dave Ward's DISCUSS on the accuracy
issue, however he's right that a normative reference to XML schema data
types is necessary to clarify this and should be referenced when the
"dateTime" data type is first mentioned.  RFC 3339 discusses these
issues in more detail.

There is no restriction as to the number of decimal digits. We'll add a
reference to XML XL documentation and to RFC 3339. 
 
FROM ISO 8601
If necessary for a particular application a decimal fraction of hour,
minute or second may be included. If a decimal fraction is included,
lower order time elements (if any) shall be omitted and the decimal
fraction shall be divided from the integer part by the decimal sign
specified in ISO 31-0, i.e. the comma [,] or full stop [.]. Of these,
the comma is the preferred sign. If the magnitude of the number is less
than unity, the decimal sign shall be preceded by two zeros in
accordance with 3.6.
The interchange parties, dependent upon the application, shall agree the
number of digits in the decimal fraction. The format shall be
[hhmmss,ss], [hhmm,mm] or [hh,hh] as appropriate (hour minute second,
hour minute, and hour, respectively), with as many digits as necessary
following the decimal sign. A decimal fraction shall have at least one
digit. In the examples below it has been agreed to give the smallest
time element a decimal fraction with one digit.

As for the timezone issue, I know in the past we have discussed whether
or not you could mandate use of timezones. At the time it was felt there
were machines that would be unable to support this feature. Keep in mind
that this solution needs to work on smaller, lower-end boxes as well as
fancy ones. Adding text mandating use of timezones would need to be
approved by the working group. Assuming the working group agrees, I have
no problem adding this text.

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:23:48 -0400

Hi

There are no objections to mandating use of time zone in eventTime?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime

Hi

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:25 PM
To: 'Chris Newman'; [email-masked]'
Cc: 'Hector Trevino (htrevino)'; 'Bert Wijnen - IETF'; 'Ersue, Mehmet

Given the output From [email-masked]  Fri Apr  4 12:24:19 2008
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 15:23:48 -0400
From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi

There are no objections to mandating use of time zone in eventTime?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime

Hi

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:25 PM
To: 'Chris Newman'; [email-masked]'
Cc: 'Hector Trevino (htrevino)'; 'Bert Wijnen - IETF'; 'Ersue, Mehmet

Given the output of conof config events from networking nodes can happen at an

 
FROM ISO 8601

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

fig events from networking nodes can happen at an

 
FROM ISO 8601

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:26:38 -0400

>There are no objections to mandating use of time zone in eventTime?

What does one use when the time zone is unknown (not configured)?

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:26:38 -0400

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:11:35 -0400

Hi

Good question. I'm going to assume here that if we do this we do it for
all three of our dateTime elements for consistency.  I think there are
two cases
  1) Not specified by client in a <startTime> or <stopTime> but
supported on the NE, then the default time zone of the box is assumed
  2) Not configured on the box. Then I don't think there is actually a
workaround. This would be a non-compliant device.

Note that if we don't do this we need to answer the issues raised in
	http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339#section-4.4 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Shafer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:27 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:11:35 -0400

Hi

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Shafer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:27 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:40:39 +0200

This can of worms has been opened by W3C in

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/

s3.2.7 and especially 3.2.7.4.

They cover the cases of time zones present and not present, and if the end
results are not magically helpful, then I think that the same applies to any
other proposal.

But I do think that we should use their work as a basis and have good reason for
departing from it.  It is more likely to be what others expect and what XML
tools provide.

Tom Petch

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:40:39 +0200

Tom Petch

---

From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:13:15 +0200

WG members,

I have only seen Phil Shafer and Tom Pech speak up on this topic.
I have difficulty determining WG consensus on this topic if we do
not get more responses aka
- I agree with the change
- I see issues: (with details)
- I don't care.

As stated in an earlier email, your current WG chairs will not take
silence as a signal of consent. PLEASE DO speak out what your opinion is.

Bert Wijnen 
notifications document shepherd (and co-chair)

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]Namens
> Sharon Chisholm
> Verzonden: vrijdag 4 april 2008 21:24
> Aan: [email-masked]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18:
> DateTime
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> To: 'Chris Newman'; 'dwaFrom [email-masked]  Mon Apr 14 08:12:46 2008
From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:13:15 +0200
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18: DateTime
Sender: [email-masked]

WG members,

I have only seen Phil Shafer and Tom Pech speak up on this topic.
I have difficulty determining WG consensus on this topic if we do
not get more responses aka
- I agree with the change
- I see issues: (with details)
- I don't care.

As stated in an earlier email, your current WG chairs will not take
silence as a signal of consent. PLEASE DO speak out what your opinion is.

Bert Wijnen 
notifications document shepherd (and co-chair)

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]Namens
> Sharon Chisholm
> Verzonden: vrijdag 4 april 2008 21:24
> Aan: [email-masked]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Netconf] FW: Netconf Notification: Issues 8 & 18:
> DateTime
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> To: 'Chris [email-masked]'

; [email-masked]'

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:18:48 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I think it would have been nice to say that timezone SHOULD be used,
in order to handle systems that don't know the timezone.  But after
looking at all the corner cases, I'm not sure it's worth it, and I
think we should say that timezone MUST be used.

Some of these corner cases:

> supported on the NE, then the default time zone of the box is assumed

So if you get the startTime 02.15 for the date when you go to winter
time, what does it mean?  Same for stopTime?

What if the client specifies a timezone, but the server doesn't know
anything about timezones?

/martin

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:18:48 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

/martin

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:40:36 +0200

Mandatory timezone indicator is fine with me.
As Sharon stated DateTime allows arbitrary precision so I don't see a need for change there. If 
we nned to choose between the formats [hhmmss,ss] is the best.
Balazs

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:40:36 +0200

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:28:31 -0700

> - I see issues: (with details)

(d) no objections -- which should mean the same as not stating
an opinion.  Sharon's original email was double-checking that
there are no objections to the edit.

This has been fairly normal SOP for the last 20 years or so.
Somebody discovers a technical problem.  Somebody else suggests
a minor, although normative change to fix the technical problem.

Rather than looking for a debate and trying to extend the
decision process as long as possible, it is common to just ask
for objections (sometimes even just STRONG objections),
and accept the bug-fix unless somebody demonstrates that:

   1) the bug-fix will not completely work
   2) the bug-fix has a ripple effect and impacts other protocol features
   3) the bug-fix is not really needed (disagree there is a problem to solve)

That's the process I thought was being used when Sharon sent her
email.  My non-response meant 'no objections to the proposed bug-fix'.

Andy

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:28:31 -0700

Andy

---

From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:34:08 +0200

Thanks Andy.

The idea is not to get "extended debate" or to "delay approval as
long as possible".
But I have difficulty figuring out what silence means. Maybe nobody
saw the message. A short :no objection" or "OK" ir "wfm" (works for me)
is really appreciated.

Bert Wijnen

> Van: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 15 april 2008 17:29
> Aan: Bert Wijnen - IETF
> CC: [email-masked]

---

From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:34:08 +0200

Thanks Andy.

Bert Wijnen

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:26:19 -0700

Hi,

I have reviewed the W3C discussion Tom mentions, which is mostly about
devices that do not support timezones in their dateTime formats, and
how to compare dateTimes with/without timezones. 

I have reviewed RFC3339 section 4.4 that Sharon mentioned:
"   A number of devices currently connected to the Internet run their
   internal clocks in local time and are unaware of UTC.  While the
   Internet does have a tradition of accepting reality when creating
   specifications, this should not be done at the expense of
   interoperability.  Since interpretation of an unqualified local
time
   zone will fail in approximately 23/24 of the globe, the
   interoperability problems of unqualified local time are deemed
   unacceptable for the Internet.  Systems that are configured with a
   local time, are unaware of the corresponding UTC offset, and depend
   on time synchronization with other Internet systems, MUST use a
   mechanism that ensures correct synchronization with UTC. " 

Since Netconf Notifications is a new technology that does not exist in
legacy devices, and if legacy devices are updated to handle Netconf
Notifications, they can be updated to provide workaround functionality
as called for by RFC3339, I believe we should follow the
standards-track guidance of RFC3339 and make the timezone a MUST for
compliance, to ensure interoperability.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of tom.petch
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:41 AM
> To: Sharon Chisholm; Phil Shafer
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:26:19 -0700

Hi,

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:47:47 +0100

> think we should say that timezone MUST be used.

I agree.

Stephen

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:47:47 +0100

I agree.

Stephen