Hi Patrik, Just a question on one of your two points: On 6/17/15 8:17 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 3 Jun 2015, at 15:21, The IESG wrote: > >> The IESG has received a request from the Time Zone Data Distribution Service WG (tzdist) to consider the following document: >> - 'Time Zone Data Distribution Service' >> <draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08.txt> as Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2015-06-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > I have two comments that neither should be blocking for this draft to be published, but I encourage IETF/IAB to take the issues serious because one day we will be bitten by this. I have been following the evolution of this since I was Area Director and while I think the tzdist work is something that should have been done from day one of the iCal work, I do not think we are done yet. > > Good: Personally I have been pushing for not having TZ definitions in the events themselves, but instead have then referenced since the iCal spec was an I-D. In those days, I was in the rough side of rough consensus, so it is good to see things go in the right directions at last :-) > > Steps for improvement: The references to the timezones is by the TZID, and that is good, but I think most parties when deciding on an event pin it to a geographical location, like city/country or so in some combination. Because of this I think ultimately a reference should be in the form of a location that the tzid service should be able to resolve to the correct TZ definition (i.e. time + location gives TZ definition). How do you want user-facing client behavior to change? I'm not sure I see that. Thanks, Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature