Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-murchison-rfc8536bis-12

Request Review of draft-murchison-rfc8536bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-04-14
Requested 2024-03-17
Authors Arthur David Olson , Paul Eggert , Kenneth Murchison
I-D last updated 2024-03-22
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -12 by Marc Blanchet (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Marc Blanchet
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-murchison-rfc8536bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-03-22
I'm the assigned ART reviewer for this document. While I'm aware of TZ and its
use, I have no competency in this technology.

Comment 1)
quoting Sec 3.2 time zone designations: "The character encoding of time zone
designation strings is not specified; however, see Section 4 of this document."

quoting Section 4.: "Time zone designations SHOULD consist of at least three
(3) and no more than six (6) ASCII characters from the set of alphanumerics,
'-', and '+'. This is for compatibility with POSIX requirements for time zone

I think this text shall be improved, as the 3.2 text says no encoding
specified, while section 4 defines clearly a character encoding that is the
current usage. Moreover, it should use MUST since nothing is described for
implementations that would not follow if they are pretending the SHOULD.
Suggesting to merge the text of section 4 into Section 3.2 and remove the
Section 4 bullet point and use MUST instead of SHOULD.

Moreover, especially given that modern programming languages default charset
for Strings are often UTF-8, and given internationalization requirements in
IETF, a paragraph discussing the rationale of not using UTF-8 in this version
or in the future might be worth.

Comment 2)
quoting Sec 4. Interoperability Considerations: ""application/tzif-leap"
(Section 8.2) to indicate that leap-second records are included in the TZif
data "

In IANA Considerations section (8), the description for application/tzif-leap
and application/tzif are identical, which does not help a viewer of the IANA
registry to decide which one to use. Suggesting to add text in 8.2
"Applications that use this media type" for application/tzif-leap to the fact
that this one includes leap-second records so that the IANA registry do contain
a differentiation text.