Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05

Jim Schaad <> Tue, 04 August 2020 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391D33A11C8; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IQBBeg8k4YDs; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E0FB3A11C7; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 17:57:37 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'Linda Dunbar' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 17:57:35 -0700
Message-ID: <053e01d669fa$4003f530$c00bdf90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQG9ChEKlhdJWGulY6hItQwMxaY9t6lZ3+rQ
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 00:57:46 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <> 
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 5:38 PM
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2020-08-03
IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-14
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

    This is a very simple draft, describing how calendar dates are represented,
    the same way as common knowledge  on how calendar dates are represented.  I
    am surprised that the draft is "STANDARD track".  Why?  The only thing
    might be that Tag 1004 is Text String, and Tag 100 is a negative integer. 
    Is it all for a RFC?

Section 1.3 states that Dates cannot be properly compared unless Time Zone is attached. Strangely, the Time Zone is not included in the tag 1004 or Tag 100. 

[JLS] Linda, This section deals not with comparing Dates with each other, but comparing Dates with Date/Time Values.  This would mean that comparing 01/01/2020 with 01/01/2020 3:59 PST does not make any sense because one has a Time Zone and the other does not.


Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

Best regards,
Linda Dunbar