Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 01 July 2020 01:13 UTC

From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org
CC: cbor@ietf.org
References: <DM6PR00MB06840B56C025B61B4543733BF5810@DM6PR00MB0684.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CH2PR00MB0679055CB2A46FDC7CFDF8E4F56C0@CH2PR00MB0679.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR00MB0679055CB2A46FDC7CFDF8E4F56C0@CH2PR00MB0679.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:13:22 -0700
Message-ID: <03c801d64f44$d265ddb0$77319910$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-us
thread-index: AQG9hUW0rmWg4KI81Ec+8sUnWhASEwN/3HsqqQd+k7A=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/GYG75GgigtU_0lDDGwI7uJdBBPU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01
Precedence: list


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 5:41 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>; draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org
> Cc: cbor@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I've applied these changes in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-date-
> tag-02.
> 
> 				Thanks again,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 11:52 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>; draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org
> Cc: cbor@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01
> 
> Thanks for your review, Jim.  My replies are inline below...
> 
> Is it time to start WGLC so others also get their reviews in?  I'll note
that the
> IANA registrations have already occurred at
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:48 AM
> To: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org
> Cc: cbor@ietf.org
> Subject: Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01
> 
> * Is there any chance that you can upgrade to using the v3 of xml2rfc
schema?
> If not then there is not an issue as the RFC Editor will do it.
> 
> I haven't really learned all the ins and outs of the new syntax yet, so
I'd have
> more confidence with the RFC Editor doing it correctly than me.
> 
> * Introduction:  I prefer the abstract form of /date but not a time/date
without
> a time/
> 
> I agree and will make this change in the next published draft.
> 
> * While this is something that is clear to me, I got a recent comment when
I
> suggested that this be used elsewhere of, "But how does this work with
time
> zones?".  Based on that I think that there needs to be some text about why
time
> zones are not of interest here.
> 
> Agreed and will do.
> 
> * Section 3- I think that the second paragraph would be wise to
distinguish
> between a point in time and a date when looking at access control
decisions.
> 
> I understand your point in general.  Is there particular text that you'd
suggest
> that I incorporate?

No I don't have any text in mind. 

Jim

> 
> Jim
> 
> 				Thanks again,
> 				-- Mike
>

[Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Jim Schaad
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Mike Jones
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Carsten Bormann
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Mike Jones
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Mike Jones
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Jim Schaad
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Mike Jones
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Jim Schaad
Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01 Mike Jones