Time Zone Data Distribution Service
charter-ietf-tzdist-01
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
(Ted Lemon)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-06 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-06)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-08-05 for -00-06)
Unknown
I was reminded by Dave Crocker on the DMARC charter: The first paragraph of a charter is circulated independently of the rest, such as when announcing the working group. As such, it needs to serve as a kind of abstract. This is why there is a requirement, specified in RFC 2418 (WG Guidelines & Procedures): Description of working group The focus and intent of the group shall be set forth briefly. By reading this section alone, an individual should be able to decide whether this group is relevant to their own work. The first paragraph must give a brief summary of the problem area, basis, goal(s) and approach(es) planned for the working group. This paragraph can be used as an overview of the working group's effort. Perhaps an edit would be useful.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-07)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-07)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-07)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-06)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-07)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-07)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-06 for -00-07)
Unknown
Thanks for raising the question on privacy, Spencer as I was also wondering what scenarios might result in privacy issues. I was just looking to make sure integrity was covered and it is, so I'm good with this charter, but curious on scenarios you envision for possible privacy issues.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-07)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-07)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-06 for -00-07)
Unknown
I have a couple of questions you might consider, but I would be fine with this charter the way it is. Is this text specific enough to be meaningful to the working group? - The time zone data distribution protocol will initially be targeted at iCalendar-based clients, but should be flexible enough to deliver time zone data in other formats. In this text: - The time zone data distribution protocol will use current security protocols to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the data as it is distributed, and may also address these issues with respect to retrieval of data from its original source (such as the Time Zone Database). Even public time zone data can represent a significant privacy exposure when it is associated with the user or endpoint that is retrieving it. After reading it, I realized that I wasn't sure if clients would retrieve all of the time zone data, or would present a time zone and ask for the description associated with that time zone. If querying for a specific time zone is what's being envisioned, that helps me understand why this would be a "significant privacy exposure", but either way, is the expected mode of operation clear to the community?
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-07 for -00-07)
Unknown
FWIW I like the privacy text. I suspect that the right approach would be something like SafeWebBrowsing where the client downloads not only the set of TZ's in which its interested. But promising to think about it is good enough for now.