Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,
Thanks for your review. My comments are in line below. I have updated my 
working copy with the changes listed below, but I will hold off posting the 
update until the IETF last call finishes in about 5 days.

--On June 5, 2015 at 4:09:26 PM -0400 Russ Housley <[e-mail]> 
wrote:

> Major Concerns:
>
> In section 5.6, it is not clear to me how to distinguish the addition
> of a leap second from the removal of a leap second.  The UTC offset
> from TAI in seconds is provided.  And, so far, we have never seen a
> negative leap second.  Is the assumption that we will never see so
> many negative ones that the offset is les than zero?  Please clarify.

The proposed format covers both addition and removal of leap seconds. In 
the case of an addition of a leap second, the "utc-offset" value in the 
JSON response will increment by one (as shown in the example in Section 
5.6.1). In the case of a removal, the "utc-offset" would decrement by one. 
For example, let's assume a fictitious negative leap second at the end of 
this year, this is what the 5.6.1 example response would look like (note 
how the "utc-offset" value is reduced from 36 to 35:

{
  "expires": "2016-06-28",
  "publisher": "Example.com",
  "version": "2015d",
  "leapseconds": [
    {
      "utc-offset": 10,
      "onset": "1972-01-01",
    },
    {
      "utc-offset": 11,
      "onset": "1972-07-01",
    },
    ...
    {
      "utc-offset": 35,
      "onset": "2012-07-01",
    },
    {
      "utc-offset": 36,
      "onset": "2015-07-01",
    },
    {
      "utc-offset": 35,
      "onset": "2016-01-01",
    }
  ]
}

I will add the following sentence to the end of the "Response:" text in 
Section 5.6 to help clarify this:

    When a leap second is added, the "utc-offset" value will be incremented
    by one, when a leap second is removed, the "utc-offset" value will be
    decremented by one.

I also spotted that a leap second is due to be added at the end of this 
month, so I adjusted the example in 5.6.1 to include that.

> Minor Concerns:
>
> Section 4.2.1.3 says: 'The "well-known" URI is always present on the
> server, even when a TXT RR (Section 4.2.1.2) is used in the DNS to
> specify a "context path".'  I think it would be better to reword this
> as a MUST statement.

Fixed.

> Section 10.1.1 says: "Decisions made by the designated expert can be
> appealed to the IESG Applications Area Director, then to the IESG."
> The IESG just merged the Applications Area and the RAI Area, creating
> the ART Area.  Is there a way to word this that can avoid confusion
> when the IESG makes further organizational changes?

Eliot suggested referencing RFC 5226, but I see that there is an update to 
that (draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11) that is currently in IESG review, 
and it seems appropriate to reference the update (and update the existing 
5226 references to that as well). It looks like the right part to point to 
is Section 10 
(<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11#section-10>). 
I will make that change.

> Section 10.2 says: "Change controller:  IETF."  Would it be better for
> the IESG to be the change controller?  This provides better alignment
> with Section 10.3.

That seems appropriate based on what I read in 5226bis.

> Section 10.2 incudes a heading for "Related information".  Something
> needs to go here.  If there is nothing to add, then say "None."

Fixed.

>
> Other Comments:
>
> The are places in the document where there are many blank lies at the
> botton of the page.  I'm sure the RFC Editor can fix them, but if you
> need to spin a new version, then you might address that too.

I think that is an artifact of the xml2rfc tool. I am using the latest 
version of that and what I think are the normal defaults for the <?rfc ...> 
directives. I would rather not try and "manually" adjust the pagination as 
that will need to be tweaked for each update and will likely have to be 
removed by the RFC editor when they get to process it.

> Section 4.1.4 says: "If a client only needs data for only one, ..."
> There is an extra "only", please drop the first one.

Fixed.

> Section 4.2.1.2 says: "... URI approach described next."  However, the
> description is a few paragraphs away.  It might be better to say that
> the approach is described in the next section, or even give the section
> upcoming number.

Fixed.

> In the IANA Considerations Section, this document is referenced at least
> three ways: RFCXXXX, This RFC, and This Draft.  Please pick one.

Fixed.


-- 
Cyrus Daboo