Re: [Tzdist-bis] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-15: (with COMMENT)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer, Adam, and Ben,

Alexey asked me to shepherd this doc.  Here is my view on the comments
received thus far:

  * On Adams suggestion for an including an example, within the bounds
    of readability, it should be included as an appendix.  Paul and Ken
    are looking for something suitable (they found an error in a zone in
    the process!).
  * On Spencer's point on “define”, The authors are documenting an
    existing format, but are also defining a code point.  I propose the
    use of the word “specifies”.  Covers all evils.
  * On Adam's point on privacy considerations, I tend to agree, and
    would suggest that the authors update accordingly to indicate the
    risk, and that appropriate protections be considered, with perhaps
    an informational reference to Sections 8 and 9 of RFC 7808.  It is
    not possible to list all mitigations, of course, because this is a
    file format and not a protocol.

Eliot


On 24.10.18 05:42, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-15: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm a little confused on one high-level point. In this text,
>
>    This document defines the Time Zone Information Format (TZif).  It is
>    a binary format used by most UNIX systems to calculate local time.
>    There is a wide variety of interoperable software [tz-link] capable
>    of generating and reading files in this format.
>
> is it correct to say that you're documenting the existing format, or are you
> also defining aspects that are not currently deployed (which would obviously be
> "defining")?
>
>