Subject: [Tzdist-bis] next round of review for draft-murchison-tzbist-tzif-00

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 08:22:36 +0200

Ok, this one is more of an administrative review.

Normative boiler plate needs to be updated as follows:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

There needs to be a template for the extension to tzdist.  See RFC 7808,
Section 10 for the format.

Finally, I think there's an error in Section 4.1:

>        "formats": [
>          "text/calendar",
>          "application/tzfile",
>        ],

I think that's supposed to be "application/tzif".

Regarding the POSIX reference, I think at this point the correct version
would be IEEE P1003.1-2017, and I think it should be referenced as follows:

"IEEE Standard for Information Technology– Portable Operating System
Interface (POSIX), Volume 1", IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, DOI:
10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, January 2018.

Once these updates are made, I will seek expert review for the tzdist
extension and the MIME format, and then we'll take things to the next step.

Eliot

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 12:09:41 -0400

>     14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all

Done.

> Section 10 for the format.

I don't think we need to register an extension to tzdist.  This is just 
another possible media-type to be advertised in the "formats" portion of 
the capabilities response.  Or am I missing your point?

> I think that's supposed to be "application/tzif".

Fixed.

> 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, January 2018.

Are you suggesting just a single reference rather than the two separate 
ones that I'm currently using?

-- 

Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
FastMail US LLC

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 18:16:58 +0200

On 22.05.18 18:09, Ken Murchison wrote:
> I don't think we need to register an extension to tzdist.  This is
> just another possible media-type to be advertised in the "formats"
> portion of the capabilities response.  Or am I missing your point?

No that's my point.  You may be right, though.  "formats", itself is a
bit of an extension mechanism.

> Are you suggesting just a single reference rather than the two
> separate ones that I'm currently using?
>

No- I've updated one.  I *think* the other goes to 2017 as well, but
I'll need to look in more detail.

Eliot

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 12:19:09 -0400

> bit of an extension mechanism.

It is, but there doesn't appear to be a template for extending 
"formats".  In fact, none of the 3 mentioned formats in 7808 are 
formally registered in 7808.

-- 
Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
FastMail US LLC

---

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:36:54 -0700

On 05/21/2018 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Regarding the POSIX reference, I think at this point the correct version  > would be IEEE P1003.1-2017, and I think it should be referenced as 
follows: > > "IEEE Standard for Information Technology– Portable 
Operating System > Interface (POSIX), Volume 1", IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, 
DOI: > 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, January 2018.
The DOI points to something with a slightly different title. Also, I 
suggest including a URL to the freely readable copy that I use in 
practice, as opposed to a DOI that leads to a URL that is a less-useful 
website that is behind what looks like paywall (a paywall that does not 
exist for me at UCLA, but I expect exists elsewhere). Something like 
this, perhaps:

"IEEE Standard for Information Technology--Portable Operating System
Interface (POSIX) Base Specifications, Issue 7", IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, 
DOI:10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, 31 January 2018. This is identical to 
The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, 2018 edition 
<http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/>.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 18:39:12 +0200

Sure.  The RFC Editor might dink with it a bit, but that's definitely
close enough.

On 22.05.18 18:36, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Regarding the POSIX reference, I think at this point the correct
>> version  > would be IEEE P1003.1-2017, and I think it should be
>> referenced as 
> practice, as opposed to a DOI that leads to a URL that is a
> less-useful website that is behind what looks like paywall (a paywall
> that does not exist for me at UCLA, but I expect exists elsewhere).
> Something like this, perhaps:
>
> DOI:10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, 31 January 2018. This is identical
> to The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, 2018 edition

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 13:03:09 -0400

> <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/>.

Rather than creating our own entry, could I just reference this:

http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml-ieee/reference.IEEE.1003.1_2013_EDITION.xml

-- 
Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
FastMail US LLC

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 19:05:23 +0200

Unfortunately it's out of date.

On 22.05.18 19:03, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> Operating System > Interface (POSIX), Volume 1", IEEE Std
>> 1003.1-2017, DOI: > 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, January 2018.
>> Interface (POSIX) Base Specifications, Issue 7", IEEE Std
>> 1003.1-2017, DOI:10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8277153, 31 January 2018. This
>> is identical to The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, 2018
>> edition <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/>.
>

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 13:06:34 -0400

OK.  I'll create my own, using this as a template.

-- 
Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
FastMail US LLC