Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning m idni ght

From: "David Lowndes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:04:47 -0000

>How does the Calendar and Scheduling WG deal with issues like this?
Would you be satisfied if we followed their lead rather than
specifying schedule semantics in the policy WG?
<

John,

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those areas, do you have any document
references that I can look at?

Dave

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 14:18:59 -0500

I am sorry I forgot to include the pointer to that WG's page:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/calsch-charter.html

At 03:04 PM 03/07/2000 +0000, David Lowndes wrote:
>I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those areas, do you have 
>any document references that I can look at? 
>
>Dave

---

From: "David Lowndes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:20:30 -0000

John,

Just so we're talking about the same things, are you referring to RFC2445
"4.8.2 Date and Time Component Properties"?

If it is, what in particular (if anything) were you thinking of being able
to re-use?

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Schnizlein
Sent: 07 March 2000 19:19
To: David Lowndes; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times
spanningm idni ght

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:18:58 -0500

At 03:20 PM 03/08/2000 +0000, David Lowndes wrote:
>
>Just so we're talking about the same things, are you referring 
>to RFC2445 "4.8.2 Date and Time Component Properties"?

Yes, but the WG continues to address scheduling issues.

>If it is, what in particular (if anything) were you 
>thinking of being able to re-use?

My view is that the Policy Framework WG should not specify any
schedule format or semantics that conflict with what the WG with
the lead on this subject is specifying. Pointing to the specifications
that are already on Standards track is better than re-using them.

If schedule semantics are not clear, or new formats would be advised,
they should be proposed in that WG. Otherwise we risk creating multiple
specifications which might conflict in obvious or subtle ways, between
the multiple WGs.