[tz] Introduction and apology for slamming you "with that TZ is a legal thing" commentary out of the blue.

Todd Glassey tglassey at certichron.com
Thu Oct 20 17:57:02 UTC 2011

On Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:45:59 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
>> What needs to happen I believe is that this effort should define a process wherein any legal authority can request a IANA update to the data base
> By "legal authority" do you mean "authority responsible for time zone rules within a country", or some other form of legal authority?

I mean specifically the people responsible for setting and 
disseminating notice of the setting of TZ data values. These are 
actually very accessible people.

> If you mean "authority responsible for time zone rules within a country", would it remain possible for the database to be updated even if the authority makes no such request and somebody happens to discover that country X has decided to change the time zone rules?

That also has to be decided. As I said - this is actually 'statements 
of commercial interoperability' in commerce processes. 
Legal-organizations (States, Counties, Countries what-ever) publish 
this information as a basis of their internal e-Operations and 
calibration so that their people and the rest of the world can all 
interact. That's a given but we often forget that the time service is 
used for a number of functions from synchronization to attestation and 
that the same time source needs to be available for each so that the 
evidence models are flattenable where needed.

So the issue is how to provide a process for legitimate holder of the 
legal authority to make public statements about their time zones.

What this actually is - is a massive opportunity for the IETF to prove 
its strengthens and to provide the technology to manage this as a 
design and then a service.
> If not, then, unless you can get all such legal authorities to make those request, requiring such a request would not constitute an improvement to the process; the resulting process would be worse, as some updates required by time zone changes wouldn't happen.

I agree totally - unless you have someone who is assigned like Dr. 
Olson was doing to formally collect that information. I am betting that 
the NIH.GOV email address didn't hurt the process either.

As I said - this is an opportunity to implement what he was doing 
manually in an automated process and that is the real win here. No 
matter who actually winds up setting and managing the content IMHO.



Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI
CTO Certichron Inc

This message contains information which may be confidential and/or 
privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to 
receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or 
disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the 
message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the 
sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) 
thereto without retaining any copies.

Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website 
pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any 
source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all 
instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes 
formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide 
access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record 
Publication License posted on the web at 

More information about the tz mailing list