-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 5:38 PM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2020-08-03
IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-14
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
This is a very simple draft, describing how calendar dates are represented,
the same way as common knowledge on how calendar dates are represented. I
am surprised that the draft is "STANDARD track". Why? The only thing
might be that Tag 1004 is Text String, and Tag 100 is a negative integer.
Is it all for a RFC?
Section 1.3 states that Dates cannot be properly compared unless Time Zone is
attached. Strangely, the Time Zone is not included in the tag 1004 or Tag 100.
Why?
[JLS] Linda, This section deals not with comparing Dates with each other, but
comparing Dates with Date/Time Values. This would mean that comparing
01/01/2020 with 01/01/2020 3:59 PST does not make any sense because one has a
Time Zone and the other does not.
Jim
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Best regards,
Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
