> Nobody has asked for a 'name' version yet. I just wanted to use this > example that demonstrate that it is hard to future proof name > choices.
Fine. The intended pattern wasn't clear. Knowing that there is a pattern, it's fine to not have a "name" version. Should the draft capture the intended pattern, and/or an explanation for why a "name" version isn't defined? > (And we also do not distinguish between mandatory and > optional components, our date-and-time type really should be named > date-and-time-with-optional-zone-offset.) True, but good luck with that! ;) Kent // co-chair and shepherd _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
