<div dir="ltr">Even though we believe that north Vietnam can be handled by Asia/Bangkok, given this new source of reliable historical data, shouldn't we put that somewhere, e.g. in backzone? We should keep these data around in case we discover changes to one of the other merged zones that means the assumptions under which they were merged is no longer accurate.<div><br></div><div>I realize that including this as an actual Zone in backzone would chip away a bit at the firmness of the 1970 cutoff, and there has already been much debate over whether or not that would be a Good Thing, which I do not wish to rehash. But I feel that having a second-class area like backzone makes loosening this cutoff a bit more necessary in cases like this, so that good data like these can be preserved in case we need them again, whether within our current scope or the scope this project takes on in the future.</div><div><br></div><div>So maybe we should keep this "extra" information about north Vietnam in comments?</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>--<br>Tim Parenti<br></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 October 2014 00:12, Paul Eggert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eggert@cs.ucla.edu" target="_blank">eggert@cs.ucla.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">Trần Ngọc Quân wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
About Cambodia and Lao, I recommend remove them. They can use<br>
Asia/Bangkok instead.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
As can north Vietnam, which was the point of the 2nd patch in:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2014-October/021669.html" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<u></u>tz/2014-October/021669.html</a><br>
<br>
See its two lines with the string "VN". With the patch installed, you can run the command "tzselect" to see these two lines in action.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>