The Time Zone Information Format (TZif)
draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-02-09
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-02-04
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-01-14
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-12-07
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2018-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2018-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2018-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2018-12-06
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-12-06
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-12-06
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-12-06
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-12-06
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2018-12-06
|
16 | Alexey Melnikov | RFC Editor Note was cleared |
2018-12-05
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-12-05
|
16 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-16.txt |
2018-12-05
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-05
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-12-05
|
16 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-04
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2018-10-26
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2018-10-26
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2018-10-26
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2018-10-26
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Updating to remove my Discuss position, as I am confident that it can be resolved (e.g., via an RFC Editor note). The original … [Ballot comment] Updating to remove my Discuss position, as I am confident that it can be resolved (e.g., via an RFC Editor note). The original point was: This is a very boring, almost-trivial discuss point, but the document seems to have an internal inconsistency to resolve before publication: Section 3.1 says that the typecnt "MUST NOT be zero", but Section 3.2 says: A TZif data block consists of seven variable-length elements, each of which is series of zero or more items. [...] This is in conflict with the above "MUST NOT be zero" for typecnt. I don't have a better suggestion than adding a parenthetical "(except for the local time records, which as mentioned above cannot have zero items)", even though I acknowledge that it is pretty awkward. Original COMMENT section: Section 2 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC): The basis for civil time since 1960. It is approximately equal to mean solar time at the prime meridian (0 degrees longitude). Usually when "approximately" is used I ask for some quantification/bounds, but I guess we can skip that for this well-known case. Section 3.2 transition types: A series of one-octet unsigned integers specifying the type of local time of the corresponding transition time. These values serve as indices into the array of local time type records. The number of type indices is specified by the 'timecnt' field in the header. Each type index MUST be in the range [0, 'typecnt' -1]. Please specify that the array accesses are zero-indexed. (Also for (desig)idx.) (is)dst: A one-octet value indicating whether local time should be considered Daylight Savings Time (DST). The value MUST be 0 nit: just "Daylight Saving" Section 5.1 nit(?): some readers might interpret the "truncation range" to be "the range that is truncated, i.e., omitted, from the file" as opposed to "the range after truncation". I guess one could make the same claim about the phrase "truncated range" as well, so maybe no action is the best plan, here. Section 7 I also agree with Adam about the privacy considerations -- while the contents of the file are not the concern, the metadata surrounding which files go where have privacy implications worth mentioning. |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] This is a very boring, almost-trivial discuss point, but the document seems to have an internal inconsistency to resolve before publication: Section 3.1 … [Ballot discuss] This is a very boring, almost-trivial discuss point, but the document seems to have an internal inconsistency to resolve before publication: Section 3.1 says that the typecnt "MUST NOT be zero", but Section 3.2 says: A TZif data block consists of seven variable-length elements, each of which is series of zero or more items. [...] This is in conflict with the above "MUST NOT be zero" for typecnt. I don't have a better suggestion than adding a parenthetical "(except for the local time records, which as mentioned above cannot have zero items)", even though I acknowledge that it is pretty awkward. |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 2 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC): The basis for civil time since 1960. It is approximately equal to mean … [Ballot comment] Section 2 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC): The basis for civil time since 1960. It is approximately equal to mean solar time at the prime meridian (0 degrees longitude). Usually when "approximately" is used I ask for some quantification/bounds, but I guess we can skip that for this well-known case. Section 3.2 transition types: A series of one-octet unsigned integers specifying the type of local time of the corresponding transition time. These values serve as indices into the array of local time type records. The number of type indices is specified by the 'timecnt' field in the header. Each type index MUST be in the range [0, 'typecnt' -1]. Please specify that the array accesses are zero-indexed. (Also for (desig)idx.) (is)dst: A one-octet value indicating whether local time should be considered Daylight Savings Time (DST). The value MUST be 0 nit: just "Daylight Saving" Section 5.1 nit(?): some readers might interpret the "truncation range" to be "the range that is truncated, i.e., omitted, from the file" as opposed to "the range after truncation". I guess one could make the same claim about the phrase "truncated range" as well, so maybe no action is the best plan, here. Section 7 I also agree with Adam about the privacy considerations -- while the contents of the file are not the concern, the metadata surrounding which files go where have privacy implications worth mentioning. |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-10-25
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-10-24
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-10-24
|
15 | Dale Worley | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list. |
2018-10-24
|
15 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-10-24
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-10-24
|
15 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-10-24
|
15 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-10-23
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot 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 … [Ballot 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. |
2018-10-23
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-10-23
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I'm a little confused on one high-level point. In this text, This document defines the Time Zone Information Format (TZif). It is … [Ballot comment] I'm a little confused on one high-level point. In this text, This document defines the Time Zone Information Format (TZif). It is a binary format used by most UNIX systems to calculate local time. There is a wide variety of interoperable software [tz-link] capable of generating and reading files in this format. is it correct to say that you're documenting the existing format, or are you also defining aspects that are not currently deployed (which would obviously be "defining")? |
2018-10-23
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-10-22
|
15 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work everyone did on this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §7: I'm glad to see a privacy considerations section in this document. I … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work everyone did on this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §7: I'm glad to see a privacy considerations section in this document. I do think, however, that it overlooks a relatively major point. The reasons that a client might choose to download a time zone other than the one it is currently in will frequently pertain to upcoming locations that its users are going to be in. While the specific time frame for such a visit won't be indicated, this information is likely to be perceived by users as very privacy sensitive. I believe this document should recommend that time zone retrieval be performed over a confidential channel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.2: > verrsion 2+ data block. Nit: "version" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- General: The format described by this document is rather complex in some ways. I think it would be a great aid to implementors if the document included an example, especially if it were annotated. |
2018-10-22
|
15 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-10-18
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2018-10-18
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2018-10-18
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-10-18
|
15 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-15.txt |
2018-10-18
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-18
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-10-18
|
15 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-12
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2018-10-09
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2018-10-08
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-13. 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 application registry on the Media Types registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ two, new media types will be registered as follows: Name: tzif Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Name: tzif-leap Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ] 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 |
2018-10-08
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-10-05
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-10-25 |
2018-10-05
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued |
2018-10-05
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-10-05
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-10-05
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-09-30
|
14 | Dale Worley | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dale Worley. Sent review to list. |
2018-09-25
|
14 | Qin Wu | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Qin Wu. Sent review to list. |
2018-09-21
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2018-09-21
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2018-09-13
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2018-09-13
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2018-09-12
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Taylor Yu |
2018-09-12
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Taylor Yu |
2018-09-12
|
14 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-14.txt |
2018-09-12
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-12
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-09-12
|
14 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: lear@ofcourseimright.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, tzdist-bis@ietf.org, draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: lear@ofcourseimright.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, tzdist-bis@ietf.org, draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-10-09. 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 defines the Time Zone Information Format (TZif) for representing and exchanging time zone information, independent of any particular service or protocol. Two MIME media types for this format are also defined. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call was requested |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | All comments are addressed to my satisfaction (or at least explained on the mailing list). |
2018-09-11
|
13 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-09-10
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-09-10
|
13 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-13.txt |
2018-09-10
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-10
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-09-10
|
13 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-05
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Finishing write-up on my AD review, to be posted shortly. |
2018-09-05
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2018-08-24
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Eliot Lear | Notification list changed to tzdist-bis@ietf.org |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Eliot Lear | > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, > Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is > this the proper … > (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? > Proposed Standard. > (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 > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or > introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that > there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document defines the Time Zone Information Format (TZif) for representing and exchanging time zone information, independent of any particular service or protocol. Two MIME media types for this format are also defined. Note that this format has existed for over three decades in one form or another. > > Working Group Summary > > Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not > adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular > points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? This document was not considered by any existing working group. The AD considered creating a WG, but it was thought that things were moving quickly enough with the right people without one. > > Document Quality > > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant > number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the > specification? This format is widely deployed. > 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, 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? Ned Freed did a media-type review on June 6, 2018. However, a second review is requested, as the media-type entries have changed. > > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Eliot Lear is the Shepherd. Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD. > > (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. The shepherd has implemented the draft (sans leap seconds) to validate it. > > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Not yet. > > (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. Additional media-type review, ART, Security, Ops, GenART. > > (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 interested > community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still > wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The leap second processing text is intricate, especially when truncation occurs. The mailing list spent an extensive amount of time on this aspect, and there is consensus on what is there now. This having been said, additional operational experience will bear out whether it is properly interpreted over time. Having multiple existing implementations, at least one of which is open source should mitigate this risk. > > (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. > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If > so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. No. > > (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this > document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few > individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested > community as a whole understand and agree with it? Among the small community of participants, there is strong consensus. > > (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 one has threatened to appeal, nor is there at this point disagreement. > (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. There are a few nits, but these appear to be the nits tool and not the document. In particular, the document isn't properly recognizing different types or references or the updated 2119 boiler template, and it is parsing URLs in the references section and complaining that there is no reference. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Review performed by a designated expert, but see above. > > (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. Not unless we view POSIX as a downref. > > (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 interested community considers it > unnecessary. This document does not change the status of any other work. > > (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 > 5226). No new registries are created. Existing registries are updated in accordance with appropriate templates and procedures, but see above re the media-type. > > (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. > n/a > (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate > sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. > This document does not specify formal grammar, but a file format. As such, no XML, BNF, or MIB definitions exist. |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Assigned to Applications and Real-Time Area |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Notification list changed to Eliot Lear <lear@ofcourseimright.com> |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Document shepherd changed to Eliot Lear |
2018-08-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2018-08-08
|
12 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-12.txt |
2018-08-08
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-08
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-08-08
|
12 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-08
|
11 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-11.txt |
2018-08-08
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-08
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-08-08
|
11 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-03
|
10 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-10.txt |
2018-08-03
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-03
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-08-03
|
10 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-30
|
09 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-09.txt |
2018-06-30
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-30
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-06-30
|
09 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-28
|
08 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-08.txt |
2018-06-28
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-28
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-06-28
|
08 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-19
|
07 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-07.txt |
2018-06-19
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-19
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-06-19
|
07 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-15
|
06 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-06.txt |
2018-06-15
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-15
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-06-15
|
06 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-05
|
05 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-05.txt |
2018-06-05
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-05
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-06-05
|
05 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-01
|
04 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-04.txt |
2018-06-01
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-01
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-06-01
|
04 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-29
|
03 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-03.txt |
2018-05-29
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-29
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-05-29
|
03 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-24
|
02 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-02.txt |
2018-05-24
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-24
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-05-24
|
02 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-23
|
01 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-01.txt |
2018-05-23
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-23
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arthur Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2018-05-23
|
01 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-27
|
00 | Kenneth Murchison | New version available: draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-00.txt |
2017-11-27
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-27
|
00 | Kenneth Murchison | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Arthur David Olson , Paul Eggert , Ken Murchison |
2017-11-27
|
00 | Kenneth Murchison | Uploaded new revision |