Subject: [Tzdist-bis] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:56:00 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I share Spencer's confusion about whether this is documenting something that
exists, or if it is defining new things. I think a section with a little
background, and possibly an explanation of the history of the 3 mentioned
versions, would be helpful.

(Note that, if the answer is that it is defining (some) new things, I kind of
wish this had been a working group document. But I'm not going to push that
point this late in the process.)

I agree with Adam's concern about privacy. Are there any use cases where a TZIF
object might be associated with a person? (For example, I know people who run
scripts to insert their current time zone in their XMPP status.) If so, that
might imply geolocation information, which is definitely privacy sensitive.

Otherwise, I have a few editorial comments:

§3: "... data specific to version
N+1 either typically appears after version N data..."
Does "typically" imply "not always? I realize there are two choices in the
paragraph, but are there cases where neither are true?

§4: "These recommended practices should be followed..."
That language seems to weaken the MUST in the second bullet.