Subject: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:48:19 -0700

* Is there any chance that you can upgrade to using the v3 of xml2rfc
schema?  If not then there is not an issue as the RFC Editor will do it.

* Introduction:  I prefer the abstract form of /date but not a time/date
without a time/

* While this is something that is clear to me, I got a recent comment when I
suggested that this be used elsewhere of, "But how does this work with time
zones?".  Based on that I think that there needs to be some text about why
time zones are not of interest here.

* Section 3- I think that the second paragraph would be wise to distinguish
between a point in time and a date when looking at access control decisions.

Jim

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 00:41:51 +0000

Hi Carsten,

The timezone-lessness of the two tags is now expressed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-02.

				Thanks again,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:43 PM
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=[email-masked]>
Cc: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Review draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-01

I sent some nits from a quick review of -01 to the authors.

The one item that will need a little more work:
I also agree with Jim that we need to say something about the timezone-lessness of the two tags.

Grüße, Carsten