IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 08 June 2015 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A59F1B2BF5; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 22:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.811
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 k12t83WeLwHQ; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 22:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF7A21B2BEF; Sun, 7 Jun 2015 22:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3016; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1433742769; x=1434952369; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=49dMOehDU5ldlpiQsxoo0f1qTkqZa3dQ8zZrs7IEGBA=; b=LeKHpmePq0lBfE4cVTuNVxUCs1+aQFzdqsr1jpYLzaEw8qWuYCpWzMqh kAEikrb3OHgISzZkbGNlOrjcbhTh8q1XPMwRvd76ydBrXic9+gD8/nYpk r/SN+NkgF1DoEkjChtP4eNgH4tY3IQ3yBpjdRmKpErwtSxxvd4lRLBAf1 k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DtAwDiLHVV/xbLJq1cg2ReAYMdu1EJgWCFeQKBTxQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIgEBAQMBI0gNARALFAQJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiCEIDasfoy0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXi0OEOzoRB4JogUUBBJVGgUdhhmqBL0CDOoJej1YkYYMYPDKCRgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,572,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="510502236"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2015 05:52:47 +0000
Received: from [10.61.217.176] ([10.61.217.176]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t585qkAY028149; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 05:52:46 GMT
Message-ID: <55752DB5.6080103@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:52:53 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, draft-ietf-tzdist-service.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08
References: <0ABAD05A-157F-4459-A9E1-E8EFB78B8413@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <0ABAD05A-157F-4459-A9E1-E8EFB78B8413@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MSN7VLK5fWtbruQKUOPIMT6Dihtg6K4mD"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rg43pnlOEuA9SIz05c_WYcQGOtg>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 05:52:51 -0000

Hi Russ and thanks for the review.

Cyrus is going to answer you on these.  But I have three comments, below:

On 6/5/15 10:09 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> This review is in response to a request for early Gen-ART review.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2015-06-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-06-17
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>
> Summary: Almost Ready
>
>
> 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.

Right.  We should allow for this.  A related point: if this ever
happens, however: never mind this protocol, things are likely to break
all over.

>
>
> 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.
>
> 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?

You're right, and I should have caught this.  My suggestion is that the
text be amended to refer to Section 3 of RFC 5226.

>
> 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.

If that is the norm, then yes.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email