The Time Zone Information Format (TZif)
draft-murchison-rfc8536bis-13

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-murchison-rfc8536bis-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the existing registrations for the following two media types:

application/tzif
application/tzif-leap

will have their references updated to [ RFC-to-be ] and their templates updated with the information in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the current draft.

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action 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 action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Marc Blanchet. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-04-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-murchison-rfc8536bis@ietf.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The Time Zone Information Format (TZif)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'The Time Zone Information Format (TZif)'
  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 2024-04-14. 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


  This document specifies the Time Zone Information Format (TZif) for
  representing and exchanging time zone information, independent of any
  particular service or protocol.  Two media types for this format are
  also defined.

  This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8536.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murchison-rfc8536bis/



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

Document History

> Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
> work item there?

No.

> Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
> the document?

No.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent?

No.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported
> somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or
> elsewhere (where)?

This code is widely implemented in the TZ distribution.

Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
> in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
> therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
> yes, describe which reviews took place.

This work has been discussed on the tz mailing list.

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

No MIBs involved, not a yang model, no media types involved, no URI
involved.


> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Code has been deployed in the TZDB distribution.

Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

I've suggested an int-area review, but this is otherwise ready to go.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard, as it obsoletes a proposed standard.  Tags are correct.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors are not aware of any associated IPR.

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes and no respectively.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The warnings produced are due to the notation used to indicate index
enumerations.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

N/A.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

No.

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes, this document obsoletes RFC 8536.  I have no access to the
meta-data, so I can't check that.  The abstract indicates this, and
the introduction goes into detail.

> 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The IANA considerations are the same as those in RFC 8536, except that
the IANA is requested to update the reference.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

n/a

Document History

> Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
> work item there?

No.

> Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
> the document?

No.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent?

No.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported
> somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or
> elsewhere (where)?

This code is widely implemented in the TZ distribution.

Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
> in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
> therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
> yes, describe which reviews took place.

This work has been discussed on the tz mailing list.

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

No MIBs involved, not a yang model, no media types involved, no URI
involved.


> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Code has been deployed in the TZDB distribution.

Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

I've suggested an int-area review, but this is otherwise ready to go.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard, as it obsoletes a proposed standard.  Tags are correct.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Authors are not aware of any associated IPR.

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes and no respectively.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The warnings produced are due to the notation used to indicate index
enumerations.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

N/A.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

No.

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes, this document obsoletes RFC 8536.  I have no access to the
meta-data, so I can't check that.  The abstract indicates this, and
the introduction goes into detail.

> 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The IANA considerations are the same as those in RFC 8536, except that
the IANA is requested to update the reference.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

n/a