Hi Patrik,
Just a question on one of your two points:
On 6/17/15 8:17 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 3 Jun 2015, at 15:21, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Time Zone Data Distribution Service
WG (tzdist) to consider the following document:
- 'Time Zone Data Distribution Service'
<draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08.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 2015-06-17. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
I have two comments that neither should be blocking for this draft to be
published, but I encourage IETF/IAB to take the issues serious because one
day we will be bitten by this. I have been following the evolution of this
since I was Area Director and while I think the tzdist work is something that
should have been done from day one of the iCal work, I do not think we are
done yet.
Good: Personally I have been pushing for not having TZ definitions in the
events themselves, but instead have then referenced since the iCal spec was
an I-D. In those days, I was in the rough side of rough consensus, so it is
good to see things go in the right directions at last :-)
Steps for improvement: The references to the timezones is by the TZID, and
that is good, but I think most parties when deciding on an event pin it to a
geographical location, like city/country or so in some combination. Because
of this I think ultimately a reference should be in the form of a location
that the tzid service should be able to resolve to the correct TZ definition
(i.e. time + location gives TZ definition).
How do you want user-facing client behavior to change? I'm not sure I
see that.
Thanks,
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature