[Cbor] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: (with COMMENT)

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 03 September 2020 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B8D3A0CDD; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 02:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.15.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <159912383150.30053.12358343264824826318@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 02:03:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/La-oE9zMfP0fCcWP7bHXimtmQys>
Subject: [Cbor] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 09:03:52 -0000

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thanks for these simple CBOR date definitions.

I have a couple of minor suggestions related to the use of negative integers. 
Feel free to take them or leave them:

The abstract states:

It also defines a CBOR tag for days since the date
   1970-01-01 in the Gregorian calendar for applications needing a
   numeric date representation without a time.

Given that a negative value is allowed, would it be better if this was written
as "... for the count of days relative to the date 1970-01-01" rather than "for
days since the date 1970-01-01"?  Or alternatively, possibly "since" could be
changed to "before or since".

1.  Introduction

I find the wording of "unsigned or negative" to be slightly jarring, presumably
written this way to include 0 in the set of allowed values.

  This specification also defines a CBOR tag for an integer
   representing a date without a time.  The tagged integer is an
   unsigned or negative value indicating the number of days since the
   Gregorian calendar date 1970-01-01.

The document might be more clear if it was written something like:

   This specification also defines a CBOR tag for an integer
   representing a date without a time.  The tagged integer, which
   may also take a negative value or 0, indicates the number of days
   since the Gregorian calendar date 1970-01-01.

If you decide to change this then I would also recommend changing this in
section 2.1, e.g., to something like:
   o  Tag: 100 (ASCII 'd')
   o  Data Item: Integer.  Positive, negative, or 0.
   o  Semantics: Number of days since the epoch date 1970-01-01
   o  Reference: [[ this specification ]]

Regards,
Rob