Re: [netmod] consensus all: timezone-location and draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:40, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:45:32PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think you do have a valid point.  It is probably be better to have
>>> one fixed version of the enumeration standardized.  But the problem is
>>> how this module would be maintained.  Apparently the database changes
>>> too often for being maintained in RFCs.  And there also seems to be
>>> a political dimension to it that I don't think we are prepared to
>>> handle.  And if we simply publish an RFC with the current version of
>>> the names from the database, what does it mean that the
>>> IANA-maintained db differs?
>>> 
>> 
>> I completely fail to understand which value an RFC with an almost
>> immediately outdated list of TZ names has.
> 
> I don't think it is "immediately outdated".  Locations are rarely added and
> removed.

Yes.

> 
>> I would then rather prefer
>> to code my manager to use my local list and be prepared that names can
>> be rejected.
> 
> I expect this to work reasonably well in practice.  But the point is
> that you don't know if a value will be accepted or not.

You know it, at least from the NETCONF point of view - that’s what the module is for. You wouldn't know it if it was a string, unless there is another mechanism to learn it (which is out of scope though).

Lada

> 
> 
> /martin
> 

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C