Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date
draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-07

[Ballot comment]
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" ?

[Ballot comment]
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

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/

the following registrations will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Tag: 1004
Data Item: UTF-8 text string
Semantics: RFC 3339 full-date string
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Tag: 100 (ASCII 'd')
Data Item: Unsigned or negative integer
Semantics: Number of days since the epoch date 1970-01-01
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-08-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, cbor@ietf.org, Francesca Palombini , cbor-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org, barryleiba@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Concise Binary Object Representation
Maintenance and Extensions WG (cbor) to consider the following document: -
'Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-08-14. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data
  format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small
  code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the
  need for version negotiation.

  In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags.
  RFC 7049 defines two tags for time: CBOR tag 0 (RFC 3339 date/time
  string) and tag 1 (Posix "seconds since the epoch").  Since then,
  additional requirements have become known.  This specification
  defines a CBOR tag for an RFC 3339 date text string, for applications
  needing a textual date representation within the Gregorian calendar
  without a time.  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.  This specification is
  intended as the reference document for IANA registration of the CBOR
  tags defined.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Standard track. This document is the reference specification for the IANA registration of date tags. This document provides a stable reference for other standardization bodies such as ISO. The WG went for the document being Standard track for this document, but could be informational if the AD prefers it.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data
  format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small
  code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the
  need for version negotiation.

  In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags.
  RFC 7049 defines two tags for time: CBOR tag 0 (RFC 3339 date/time
  string) and tag 1 (Posix "seconds since the epoch").  Since then,
  additional requirements have become known.  This specification
  defines a CBOR tag for an RFC 3339 date text string, for applications
  needing a textual date representation within the Gregorian calendar
  without a time.  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.  This specification is
  intended as the reference document for IANA registration of the CBOR
  tags defined.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There was some discussion in the WG about the difference between calendar days, for which this specification registers tags, and points in time.
The chairs have suggested to add more text about it, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/Z4nwfurN7-L0l4uLPdR-XV91IGk/

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

A numbers of WG participants have stated they have read and reviewed the document. A WG participant has mentioned an implementation has been done.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Francesca Palombini
Responsible AD: Barry Leiba

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed the document and its previous versions, and believe this is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns or issues. Some participants have stated they are not sure about the motivation for this tag registration, given the existence of tags 0 and 1, but the majority supported that this is a different use case. Note also that the new tags have already been registered, and publishing this document will provide a stable reference for those registrations.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, each author has confirmed.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosure has been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document is supported by the majority of the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA registry for these tags has already gone through.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No checks required.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The document does not contain any YANG module.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Standard track. This document is the reference specification for the IANA registration of date tags. This document provides a stable reference for other standardization bodies such as ISO. The WG went for the document being Standard track for this document, but could be informational if the AD prefers it.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data
  format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small
  code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the
  need for version negotiation.

  In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags.
  RFC 7049 defines two tags for time: CBOR tag 0 (RFC 3339 date/time
  string) and tag 1 (Posix "seconds since the epoch").  Since then,
  additional requirements have become known.  This specification
  defines a CBOR tag for an RFC 3339 date text string, for applications
  needing a textual date representation within the Gregorian calendar
  without a time.  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.  This specification is
  intended as the reference document for IANA registration of the CBOR
  tags defined.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There was some discussion in the WG about the difference between calendar days, for which this specification registers tags, and points in time.
The chairs have suggested to add more text about it, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/Z4nwfurN7-L0l4uLPdR-XV91IGk/

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

A numbers of WG participants have stated they have read and reviewed the document. A WG participant has mentioned an implementation has been done.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Francesca Palombini
Responsible AD: Barry Leiba

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed the document and its previous versions, and believe this is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns or issues. Some participants have stated they are not sure about the motivation for this tag registration, given the existence of tags 0 and 1, but the majority supported that this is a different use case. Note also that the new tags have already been registered, and publishing this document will provide a stable reference for those registrations.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, each author has confirmed.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosure has been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document is supported by the majority of the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA registry for these tags has already gone through.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No checks required.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The document does not contain any YANG module.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Standard track. This document is the reference specification for the IANA registration of date tags. This document provides a stable reference for other standardization bodies such as ISO. The WG went for the document being Standard track for this document, but could be informational if the AD prefers it.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data
  format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small
  code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the
  need for version negotiation.

  In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags.
  RFC 7049 defines two tags for time: CBOR tag 0 (RFC 3339 date/time
  string) and tag 1 (Posix "seconds since the epoch").  Since then,
  additional requirements have become known.  This specification
  defines a CBOR tag for an RFC 3339 date text string, for applications
  needing a textual date representation within the Gregorian calendar
  without a time.  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.  This specification is
  intended as the reference document for IANA registration of the CBOR
  tags defined.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There was some discussion in the WG about the difference between calendar days, for which this specification registers tags, and points in time.
The chairs have suggested to add more text about it, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/Z4nwfurN7-L0l4uLPdR-XV91IGk/

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

A numbers of WG participants have stated they have read and reviewed the document. A WG participant has mentioned an implementation has been done.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Francesca Palombini
Responsible AD: Barry Leiba

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I have reviewed the document and its previous versions, and believe this is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns or issues. Some participants have stated they are not sure about the motivation for this tag registration, given the existance of tags 0 and 1, but the majority supported that this is a different use case. Note also that the new tags have already been registered, and publishing this document will provide a stable reference for those registrations.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

TODO


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

TODO

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document is supported by the majority of the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The IANA registry for these tags has already gone through.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No checks required.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The document does not contain any YANG module.