[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ecrit] LoST Review - part 2

On 31 jan 2007, at 17.29, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

More comments on comments.

   For example, a UUID is a suitable format.  The 'version'
attribute is
   a positive integer that is incremented by one for each change in
the
   mapping.


So if the difference between two records I happen to have is 4, there
MUST have been that number of versions in between? It is unclear in
this text as no MUST, SHOULD etc is in use if this increment of one
is mandatory or not. Makes the protocol unclear and might lead to
incompatible implementations.


I'm not sure why this matters. If a version exists only for a femtosecond, did it really exist, even though nobody could ever see it? Did the tree fall in the forest if nobody heard the sound?

What interoperability problem would you imagine?

I'm trying to avoid unnecessary text. 

Why do you say that the number should explicitly increase by one?

In DNS one "just" say the number should increase.

Increasing with 2 is violating the spec the way it is written.

Note that according to 3.2.7.2 of http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-
xmlschema-2-20010502/#dateTime (maybe I am looking at the wrong
source) the canonical representation of a time is always in UTC, so
the timezoned canonical version will always have 'Z' as the timezone
indicator.

This is what you want?

Yes, unless there's a better alternative. (We definitely don't want to express time zones, since they don't add any value here.)

I think it is good. I just wanted to make sure you did not want to allow timezones (I think the text in the spec you reference is confusing -- "canonical format WITH timezone" only allow Z, and not timezone).

   Patrik

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit