Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-17
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-17-artart-telechat-gondwana-2024-12-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Telechat Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-12-17
Requested 2024-11-26
Authors Jürgen Schönwälder
I-D last updated 2025-12-22 (Latest revision 2025-06-23)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -16 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Florian Obser (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -16 by Russ Housley (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -16 by Bron Gondwana (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -17 by Florian Obser (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -17 by Bron Gondwana (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Antoine Fressancourt (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Bron Gondwana
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/Ux5eg_YZcUCx_Q1jIDqVUFd2OX8
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-12-17
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-17-artart-telechat-gondwana-2024-12-17-00
I am the ARTART reviewer.

I previously reviewed -16 and had feedback about the datetime formats.  Thank
you for taking that feedback on board.  I like the text you have for the new
"date" type.  I do still think that it would be valuable to include a note
regarding the inadvisability of relying on 'Z' to mean "it definitely happened
in GMT" and recommending always using "+00:00" for that purpose, as well as
advising against producing new data with "-00:00" since it's not defined by the
more recent versions of ISO8601 and this is supposed to be a profile of 8601.

But I don't think it's worth blocking the document for, hence "Ready with Nits".

Again, thanks for your great response to my earlier feedback.  Otherwise the
document looks great.