Re: [Tzdist] Next step

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9957B1AC406 for <tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 Kd4C5r1Wkakx for <tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4BD71A6F38 for <tzdist@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1820; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1445325717; x=1446535317; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=I/1SllCsShCPXp/LxZ4vmuDcuTJWR/2bQ8DrRiefFqE=; b=TuCYS89tF+Lb0PMywc/WgN/TRcrA+DqjuEoyoTRkTRqZC1ry/f0CRjDH ZRE75jwoHXZgB43cVnRvFB2DvKbA0E2w+UnXV/5dST9wFGak5LdZGbO1B Vm+NSmaSUAoVYZgS9fj8Tbi/bYqbk5rYzv6pnUKvuGMd4Ih3vqBUEPnJP s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DCBABF6iVW/xbLJq1dhApvAcAAIYV9AoIOAQEBAQEBgQuELgEBBCNVEQsYCRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMCAEBBYgnDbFQkxYBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQETCYt1hRSCaYFFAQSWJIJOgWGIcIkYkwljhAU8NAGFZgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,706,1437436800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="607684304"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2015 07:21:55 +0000
Received: from [10.61.106.150] (dhcp-10-61-106-150.cisco.com [10.61.106.150]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9K7LtY2012278; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:21:55 GMT
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>, tzdist@ietf.org
References: <CADZyTkmO_PcfWTw-36U_6vo=EuDAnAmvUo6nvPZjkHjb_ALPSQ@mail.gmail.com> <40285_1445262970_t9JDu8BA043191_50DBD330DB51FDFC0C3E86D4@cyrus.local> <5624FAC4.5030008@andrew.cmu.edu> <B38549591D4FFBE5A83BF0BD@cyrus.local> <56253CCB.6010602@gmail.com> <316D3AAC6E4A5336C1784897@caldav.corp.apple.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <5625EB92.4040808@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:21:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <316D3AAC6E4A5336C1784897@caldav.corp.apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NqA2qGSQJ6kRAkG5Mvuld8gg8R2Qqt9Nn"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tzdist/_z_RpuBc1fy--Hy79PtunLuQxoo>
Subject: Re: [Tzdist] Next step
X-BeenThere: tzdist@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <tzdist.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tzdist/>
List-Post: <mailto:tzdist@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:21:59 -0000

Hi Cyrus,

On this point:

On 10/19/15 9:00 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> It is true that there are already web services that do that kind of
> thing (see e.g.,
> <http://www.geonames.org/export/web-services.html#timezone>). The
> question is whether that would be valuable for a client to do directly
> along side tzdist - or would we just let them rely on their existing
> "date-time/timezone" picker UI.

Someone has to want to use the output that is being discussed.  If we
were to hold a BoF on this we would ask the following questions:

1.  Is this important to do?
2.  Is it correct for the IETF to do it?
3.  Is there a draft author?
4.  Are there reviewers?

and I'll add:

5.  If this was done, who would implement?

Really I'd like to hear the answer to 5 first.

And then we have to return to whether or not this is appropriate given LoST.

Eliot