ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [netmod] Fwd: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03.txt> (IANA Timezone Database YANG Module) to Proposed Standard

2014-01-08 10:37:56
Dear all,

Sadly, I have not seen a reply to this one.
So let me start the discussion, copying both the ietf-discussion and the netmod WG mailers.
See in-line.
Dear all,

Here is some feedback from the IETF discussion list.
I would appreciate if the author and document shepherd could follow up. Ideally on the IETF discussion list.

Regards, Benoit


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03.txt> (IANA Timezone Database YANG Module) to Proposed Standard
Date:   Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:36:31 -0800
From:   SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
To:     <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>



At 12:46 03-12-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
>WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
>- 'IANA Timezone Database YANG Module'
>   <draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03.txt> 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org  mailing lists by 2013-12-17. Exceptionally, comments 
may be

There is the following question in the document shepherd write-up:

   Why is this the proper type of RFC?

I did not see an answer to that question.
Not sure what you propose here. Proposed Standard seems right to me.
From http://www.rfc-editor.org/RFCoverview.html


       RFC Categories

   Each RFC has a "category" or "status" designation. The possible
   categories (see *RFC 2026*
   <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt> "The Internet Standards
   Process -- Revision 3") are:

     * INTERNET STANDARD, DRAFT STANDARD (deprecated; see RFC 6410
       <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6410.txt>), PROPOSED STANDARD

       These are /Standards Track/ documents, official specifications
       of the Internet protocol suite defined by the Internet
       Engineering Task Force (IETF) <http://www.ietf.org> and its
       steering group the IESG.

     * BEST CURRENT PRACTICE

       These are official guidelines and recommendations, but not
       standards, from the IETF.

     * INFORMATIONAL, EXPERIMENTAL

       These non-standards documents may originate in the IETF or may
       be independent submissions.

     * HISTORIC

       These are former standards that have been actively deprecated.


The WGLC was from 5 July to 22 July.  There wasn't any comments
during the WGLC.  The only comment I found was one posted on 9 August.

In Section 1:

   "The iana-timezones YANG module defines the iana-
    timezone type, which is a serialization of the existing IANA Time
    Zone registry [RFC6557] into YANG format."

The terminology in RFC 6557 defines a TZ Database sometimes referred
to as the "Olson Database".  There isn't any mention of a "IANA Time
Zone registry".  I suggest using the same name as in RFC 6557.
That makes sense.

>From Section 3:

   'The iana-timezones module is intended to reflect the IANA "timezone
    database" [RFC6557].  When a timezone location is added to the
    database, the "iana-timezone" enumeration MUST be updated as defined
    in RFC 6020 Section 10 to add the newly created timezone location to
    the enumeration.  The new "enum" statement MUST be added to the
    "iana-timezone" typedef with the same name as the newly added
    timezone location.  A new enum value MUST be allocated by IANA and
    applied to the newly created enum entry.  New entries MAY be placed
    in any order in the enumeration as long as the previously assigned
    enumeration values are not changed.

    If a timezone location is removed from the IANA timezone database,
    the corresponding existing enum statement is kept and a status
    statement is added to mark the enum entry as 'obsolete'.'

The maintainer of the TZ database is responsible for the TZ
Database.  The person does not work for IANA.
Correct, but see BCP 175: Procedures for Maintaining the Time Zone Database:
<http://www.iana.org/go/rfc6557>

   The TZ Coordinator is an IANA Designated Expert

Are you questioning the term "IANA timezone database", which should be "TZ 
Database" according to BCP 175?

I don't think that
IANA keeps track of the contents of the TZ Database as it was not
asked to do that work.
I think it does: http://www.iana.org/time-zones
I don't see the value of using RFC 2119 key
word for the IANA Considerations.


I suggest not creating the registry proposed in this draft.  The TZ
database has strived to keep out of political issues.  Adding such a
registry will pave the way for such issues.
Well, we need to specify the system clock in the following YANG module (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt/), and hence we require a way to represent the TZ in YANG.

Regards, Benoit

Regards,
-sm

.





_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod