> -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:42 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol > (EPP)' toDraftStandard (draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis) > > Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > > RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps) > > Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03, > > draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-04, > draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03, > > draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04 > > This reference is sited to capture a format that is also > available in > > the W3C's XML Schema specifications. It can be replaced with an > > existing normative reference to the W3C specification. > > That's odd, why should you be forced to replace a normative > reference to > the perfectly fine RFC 3339 by some spec. published elsewhere ? AFAIK > nothing is wrong with RFC 3339, let's just promote it if > that's what it > takes to reference it. There's more to it than "just promote it". The practical point is that 3339 is only used to specify time and date formats that are a subset of existing XML Schema formats. XML Schema is already a needed normative reference. I don't really need two normative references that specify the same thing, and I can't eliminate the Schema reference. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf