Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05

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

 



Linda, thanks for your review. All, thanks for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa


> On Aug 5, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=40microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Jim's response to the comparison question.
> 
> An RFC is being created because a tag is being registered in the Specification Required range of the Tags Registry specified at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049#section-7.2.
> 
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Schaad <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 5:58 PM
> To: 'Linda Dunbar' <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; cbor@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> 
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 5:38 PM
> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; cbor@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
> 
> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
> Review Date: 2020-08-03
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-14
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
>    This is a very simple draft, describing how calendar dates are represented,
>    the same way as common knowledge  on how calendar dates are represented.  I
>    am surprised that the draft is "STANDARD track".  Why?  The only thing
>    might be that Tag 1004 is Text String, and Tag 100 is a negative integer. 
>    Is it all for a RFC?
> 
> Section 1.3 states that Dates cannot be properly compared unless Time Zone is attached. Strangely, the Time Zone is not included in the tag 1004 or Tag 100. 
> Why?
> 
> [JLS] Linda, This section deals not with comparing Dates with each other, but comparing Dates with Date/Time Values.  This would mean that comparing 01/01/2020 with 01/01/2020 3:59 PST does not make any sense because one has a Time Zone and the other does not.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Best regards,
> Linda Dunbar
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux