Re: [Cbor] draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-02 - handling of time zone offsets

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for adding new text to -04. I am, however, not sure the text is
already resolving all issues.

- I do not understand why you reference IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition
   [POSIX.1] time epoch 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z UTC if you then say that
   the timezone is irrelevant. If the timezone is irrelevant, you can
   simplify things:

   OLD

   The epoch chosen for the second tag, which represents days since the
   Gregorian calendar date 1970-01-01, is related to the IEEE Std
   1003.1, 2013 Edition [POSIX.1] time epoch 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z UTC
   only insofar as both contain the date 1970-01-01.  This should not be
   construed as indicating that dates using this tag represent either a
   specific time of day and/or time zone.

   NEW

   The epoch chosen for the second tag, which represents days since the
   Gregorian calendar date 1970-01-01.

- In the section Comparing Dates, I like to see a clear statement that
  dates generated by systems in different timezones for the same event
  may not compare for equality.

- I do not understand section 1.3. Perhaps you wanted to say that the
  representation of date and time values is already defined in section
  2.4.1 of RFC 7049? (Of course, one could ask the question why you now
  introduce a tag for date values but not at the same time also a tag
  for time values.)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>