Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date
RFC 8943
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Erik Kline No Objection
[ abstract ] * Should this reference 7049bis (given the approximate proximity in publication time)?
Martin Duke No Objection
Murray Kucherawy No Objection
Robert Wilton No Objection
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
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you Kyle Rose for performing the review).
Warren Kumari No Objection
Thank you -- nice, clear, and short! :-)
Éric Vyncke No Objection
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 steering group member) Yes
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with the secdir reviewer that we could (but don't have to) talk about leap seconds.
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection