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

[Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Russ,

 

Thank you for the comments, these will be addressed with the necessary clarifications shortly.

BR,

Daniel

 

From: Cyrus Daboo [mailto:cyrus@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 8:26 PM
To: Daniel Migault
Cc: Eliot Lear
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08

 

I have time set aside Monday morning to work on that.

-- 

Cyrus Daboo

(Tapped out on my iPad)

 

On Jun 7, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Cyrus,

Can you confirm you have received Russ' comments, and please address them. I think it would be good to have a new version this week. BTW it looks we are getting closer and closer to the finish state.

BR,

Daniel. 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:09 PM
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08
To: draft-ietf-tzdist-service.all@xxxxxxxx
Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>


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.


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?

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.

Section 10.2 incudes a heading for "Related information".  Something
needs to go here.  If there is nothing to add, then say "None."


Other Comments:

The are places in the document where there are many blank lies at the
botton of the page.  I'm sure the RFC Editor can fix them, but if you
need to spin a new version, then you might address that too.

Section 4.1.4 says: "If a client only needs data for only one, ..."
There is an extra "only", please drop the first one.

Section 4.2.1.2 says: "... URI approach described next."  However, the
description is a few paragraphs away.  It might be better to say that
the approach is described in the next section, or even give the section
upcoming number.

In the IANA Considerations Section, this document is referenced at least
three ways: RFCXXXX, This RFC, and This Draft.  Please pick one.