Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date
RFC 8943

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2020-09-01 for -06)
No email
send info
I agree with the secdir reviewer that we could (but don't have to) talk about leap seconds.

Erik Kline No Objection

Comment (2020-09-04 for -06)
[ abstract ]

* Should this reference 7049bis (given the approximate proximity in
  publication time)?

Martin Duke No Objection

Murray Kucherawy No Objection

Robert Wilton No Objection

Comment (2020-09-03 for -06)
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

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2020-09-08 for -06)
No email
send info
Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you Kyle Rose for performing the review).

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2020-09-09 for -06)
No email
send info
Thank you -- nice, clear, and short! :-)

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-09-07 for -06)
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" ?

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info