Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Lisa Dusseault) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

I would change the parameter order in the examples to match the syntax.

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

A few issues I noticed while reviewing this:

Section 4.1:

I think it would be more accurate to say "zone offset" rather than zone.  I observe you use a syntax different from time-numoffset in RFC 3339,
but that allows your zone offsets to work with i;ascii-numeric so
that's fine.  Just want to verify it's an intentional difference.  It
might be worth mentioning the ":zone" syntax is different from the
syntax used in "iso8601".

Section 4.2:

Your "weekday" scheme is different from the weekday scheme in ISO 8601
which uses 1 for Monday and 7 for Sunday.  Is there a reason for the
difference?  It's probably too late to change anyway since there are
implementations of this.  Perhaps it would be good just to mention the
difference.

Section 4.3:

>   "year", "month", "day", "date", "hour", "minute", "second" and
>   "weekday" all use fixed-width string representations of integers, and
>   can therefore be compared with "i;octet", "i;ascii-casemap", and
>   "i;ascii-numeric" with equivalent results.

This is not true for the "date" date-part.  The "i;ascii-numeric"
collation is probably not useful for that one (it would only be useful
for a date format that omitted the delimiters).

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection