Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date
draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-07
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
(Alissa Cooper)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Duke)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Comment
(2020-09-04 for -06)
Sent
[ abstract ] * Should this reference 7049bis (given the approximate proximity in publication time)?
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2020-09-08 for -06)
Not sent
Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you Kyle Rose for performing the review).
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2020-09-09 for -06)
Not sent
Thank you -- nice, clear, and short! :-)
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2020-09-07 for -06)
Sent
Thank you for the work put into this document. Thank you Samita Chakrabarti for your IoT directorate review at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06-iotdir-telechat-chakrabarti-2020-08-31/ Please find below some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric PS: your example in the security considerations applied to my own birthday in Japan then in Canada ;-) and this was my only international date line crossing. Good planing of mine ;-) == NITS == -- Section 1 and IANA section -- In the text "The tagged integer is an unsigned or negative value", should it rather be "The tagged integer is a positive or negative value" ?
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-09-01 for -06)
Not sent
I agree with the secdir reviewer that we could (but don't have to) talk about leap seconds.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-09-03 for -06)
Sent
Hi, Thanks for these simple CBOR date definitions. I have a couple of minor suggestions related to the use of negative integers. Feel free to take them or leave them: The abstract states: It also defines a CBOR tag for days since the date 1970-01-01 in the Gregorian calendar for applications needing a numeric date representation without a time. Given that a negative value is allowed, would it be better if this was written as "... for the count of days relative to the date 1970-01-01" rather than "for days since the date 1970-01-01"? Or alternatively, possibly "since" could be changed to "before or since". 1. Introduction I find the wording of "unsigned or negative" to be slightly jarring, presumably written this way to include 0 in the set of allowed values. This specification also defines a CBOR tag for an integer representing a date without a time. The tagged integer is an unsigned or negative value indicating the number of days since the Gregorian calendar date 1970-01-01. The document might be more clear if it was written something like: This specification also defines a CBOR tag for an integer representing a date without a time. The tagged integer, which may also take a negative value or 0, indicates the number of days since the Gregorian calendar date 1970-01-01. If you decide to change this then I would also recommend changing this in section 2.1, e.g., to something like: o Tag: 100 (ASCII 'd') o Data Item: Integer. Positive, negative, or 0. o Semantics: Number of days since the epoch date 1970-01-01 o Reference: [[ this specification ]] Regards, Rob