Re: [csaf] Perhaps foolish of me to have done so, but I did an editing pass on draft of 1.2

On 04/04/17 20:48, Art Manion wrote:
> On 4/3/17 6:36 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> 
>> I was noting a few random typos in the 1.2 draft, which made me think I
>> should spend the time going through the whole document.
> 
> In 2.2.1 Date and Time Model:
> 
> "All date time values inside a CSAF CVRF document SHOULD adhere to the
> ISO 8601..."
> 
> You suggest replacing SHOULD with MUST.  Strongly agree.
> 
> UTC is "Coordinated Universal Time", not "Universal Time Coordinated."
> I suspect the French are to blame.
> 
> "...any date time literal having an empty zone designator SHOULD be
> treated as having UTC offset 0..."
> 
> Change SHOULD to MUST again, agree, or require time zone.  However, I
> believe we want to (and do) support date only, e.g., 2017-03-30, for
> which time zone makes less sense.
> 
> I wonder about the need to support fractional seconds, but OK.
> 
> And lastly, maybe just remove this sentence:
> 
> "UTC is synonymous to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), “Zero meridian” time,
> or military “Zulu” time."
> 
> Although correct, it's redundant, and "military" might be subjective.

I already started to go over the feedback suggested by Eric and will provide a new draft with included what I consider clear enhancements fast, and possible narrowing (as in above seconded case of the time format).

The next draft - to put the time waiting for a decision on the requirement level for CVSS v3 Scores to an optimal use - will contain the normative SHOULD to MUST changes for Date (Time) field content formats.

Please note, that the v1.1 was performing a wishful egg dance around that camp fire.

I am in favor of the change! ... but was not willing to introduce this possible additional breaking change singlehandedly without further seconders.

So thank you Art and Eric for supporting us here.

/Stefan.