[Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-11: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-11: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

** Section 2.
   For example, map keys could be registered for direct representations
   of natural platform time formats.

What are “natural platform time formats”?

** Section 3.
   The map must contain exactly one unsigned integer key that specifies
   the "base time", and may also contain one or more negative integer or
   text-string keys, which may encode supplementary information.

Should a normative MUST and MAY be used here?

** Section 8.
   Time, of course, has significant security considerations; these
   include the exploitation of ambiguities where time is security
   relevant (e.g., for freshness or in a validity span) or the
   disclosure of characteristics of the emitting system (e.g., time
   zone, or clock resolution and wall clock offset).

Recommend citing the Security Considerations of
draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended.  The text there covers a number of the
topics mentioned above.