Hi Alissa, Thanks for your comments, please see my update proposal inline, All the best for 2019 Sabine
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:10 PM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT) Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use HTTPS URIs in the examples. Section 4: I think the correct description of the time zone is actually UTC, per RFC 7231, even though timestamps get displayed with the acronym "GMT." [[SR]] Paragraph 2 of secion 4 has been updated as follows. Is that ok? "The reference time zone for the provided time values is UTC because the option chosen to express the time format is the HTTP header fields format specified in <xref target="RFC7231"/> where however timestamps are still displayed with the acronym GMT:" _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
