IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] draft-murchison-rfc8536bis-00

Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <murch@fastmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4213A0918 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 04:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.b=Q2Jr17X9; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=RITKhBqM
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id etAUaTwyVIdd for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 04:43:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB2EF3A0912 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 04:43:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6585C01A7 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 07:43:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Mar 2021 07:43:15 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; s=fm2; bh=0aXHg8litSltUBx0Z2XCuiCa0+q NMDAyWIRReuJnVsI=; b=Q2Jr17X9zouf0FaJJO9eLRHF6tvhd9yLqE9D6IIp61n jmTWIEPqGJT+FnY0e4/NZtzwL+B87zo/W6tA0bGECIGk3VRs7PcvucOl7S53UnxV CKcRX8G/gwMtPycRcqBTi/tXabNwpY72nH58gWwKseUI+AS5vPwXrypCKSf379CL FIn16uJ6RK9cG2aG/xosRheECfnbV9eKh1Day7lFWfZZWFMbVviJvdgyYW9JxG3s xx+8Hl1Y6bVeWyhqQx1MEGZlqP2IHDPRn8QCo31APSJUNFN4jsWJOpvoEfuDhFXh zhkY5Via3wC5FabfeTFXW3ouoibfsTEqa3SZvx+zwtw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=0aXHg8 litSltUBx0Z2XCuiCa0+qNMDAyWIRReuJnVsI=; b=RITKhBqMrcAd2hmwyLEs6I B7fw05NQbur820/3T5J8UpIfVkT/8RwGZKAkpoeZ01N5BJQyeVPgwIns24PVm2g1 QUCwFTTwSBNHigZUamDni1w4VVx/QtkzMRcscNE4WD6ZwM40VgmfGlHGkD9TN3Gk jmqw517EJzXOwGjoNXNpG0lRfZ6DE5FihwaL8AyeistySnrFq6k3BAdHROPlHVnQ LlYnY2Rgk6FFJdvb3bE+IkGGYX+SOluVKPefbjkoAW8A3iTTXqPhkghBoEWsR4DS YmtsjdtygoP0pEKrm7353sz4KW3fM6INRRypk+oMTtCOCwKaFle5PQISpXUhBmfw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Y21HYPdVj0o6WfblxCkV7ZCbGeZnuCOYfHRy-GO88lRlIn6OCIn6Wg> <xme:Y21HYFOg7T8nNmkBRQzaAoGdMATe4nJjT8pyv0h2fjcrrq239I51OwdSCGWdXi0e5 9bahu3uCKsr8w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudduiedggeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtre ertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvnhcuofhurhgthhhishhonhcuoehmuhhrtghhsehfrghs thhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffeuhfevgffgvdduuedvteeije euvddvkedugeegvdffvefgudffueeileeggeegnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhr ghenucfkphepjeegrdejjedrkeehrddvhedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhurhgthhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Y21HYIgtHHQkzaL0PcJBqcI30Rsls6MHvdk3N3f_aJvBfHlZagzfMA> <xmx:Y21HYA__Ku95F_vxWFR5LciLFa0oX0lqGBRgn6i5WBuWd92abWX3Vw> <xmx:Y21HYLvXjdYn7M3u63Y3Hb500D691LexgN1yuk8pjhj4bcwrj0uAWQ> <xmx:Y21HYJ7o4QRNbsJB01F2SulShn4sfAndWk6eQFtCexPBK9Tu7onkLQ>
Received: from [192.168.1.22] (cpe-74-77-85-250.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.85.250]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7005924005A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 07:43:15 -0500 (EST)
To: dispatch@ietf.org
References: <f924255a-b51a-5d91-a9df-0797e176af41@fastmailteam.com> <9DC92A89-3B7E-47AE-97E2-3271D696393C@cisco.com>
From: Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <8c5f2686-1dc8-9827-9bfa-a0291f52afb1@fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 07:43:14 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9DC92A89-3B7E-47AE-97E2-3271D696393C@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C46119F488C32531C8F7D4EA"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/zmaUxk9G6dn9UYvsgRwgoN0HuPQ>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-murchison-rfc8536bis-00
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 12:43:19 -0000

Hi Eliot,

The clarification is that there is currently no (good) method for 
specifying the expiration of the leap second table.  This wouldn't 
require a change to the format, but perhaps a change in the semantics of 
the last (or additional) leap second record.  Whether this change would 
require a bump in the version is the open question.


On 3/8/21 4:13 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> This looks good.  These are *very* incremental changes, and I’ve 
> confirmed at least that the example that you have for all year DST 
> works on several implementations.  Last time around we did a mini-wg. 
>  Unless there is a real reason to do a v4 format, I’d say that 
> AD-sponsored could get this out quickly.  A v4 format is a horse of a 
> different color.  For that I’d do another mini-WG.  What’s the 
> clarification?
>
> Eliot
>
>> On 8 Mar 2021, at 21:55, Ken Murchison <murch@fastmailteam.com 
>> <mailto:murch@fastmailteam.com>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> The authors of RFC 8536 (Time Zone Information Format) have started 
>> an update 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-murchison-rfc8536bis> 
>> providing editorial improvements, new details, and errata fixes.  The 
>> original specification was done within the now-closed TZDIST WG.
>>
>> We started this effort too late to get on the DISPATCH agenda earlier 
>> today, so Barry Leiba suggested that we bring the existing draft here 
>> to see where the members feel where the continuing work should reside.
>>
>> The current draft does not make any changes to the format, but we 
>> recently have determined that an upcoming clarification MAY dictate 
>> that we specify a new v4 format.
>>
>> -- 
>> Kenneth Murchison
>> Cyrus Development Team
>> Fastmail US LLC
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status