Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08

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

 



Hi Russ and thanks for the review.

Cyrus is going to answer you on these.  But I have three comments, below:

On 6/5/15 10:09 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> This review is in response to a request for early Gen-ART review.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2015-06-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-06-17
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>
> Summary: Almost Ready
>
>
> Major Concerns:
>
> In section 5.6, it is not clear to me how to distinguish the addition
> of a leap second from the removal of a leap second.  The UTC offset
> from TAI in seconds is provided.  And, so far, we have never seen a
> negative leap second.  Is the assumption that we will never see so
> many negative ones that the offset is les than zero?  Please clarify.

Right.  We should allow for this.  A related point: if this ever
happens, however: never mind this protocol, things are likely to break
all over.

>
>
> Minor Concerns:
>
> Section 4.2.1.3 says: 'The "well-known" URI is always present on the
> server, even when a TXT RR (Section 4.2.1.2) is used in the DNS to
> specify a "context path".'  I think it would be better to reword this
> as a MUST statement.
>
> Section 10.1.1 says: "Decisions made by the designated expert can be
> appealed to the IESG Applications Area Director, then to the IESG."
> The IESG just merged the Applications Area and the RAI Area, creating
> the ART Area.  Is there a way to word this that can avoid confusion
> when the IESG makes further organizational changes?

You're right, and I should have caught this.  My suggestion is that the
text be amended to refer to Section 3 of RFC 5226.

>
> Section 10.2 says: "Change controller:  IETF."  Would it be better for
> the IESG to be the change controller?  This provides better alignment
> with Section 10.3.

If that is the norm, then yes.

Eliot


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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