Re: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam and Benjamin,

It appears to me that the JSON format is not specific to the cost calendar
but a general problem with all ALTO extensions (or even all protocols
encoded in JSON).

I wonder if we have some kind of "best practice" in situations like this.
For example, how do other protocols handle this if they originally cited
RFC 7159?

Since you guys are more senior in the IETF, do you happen to know any RFC
in a similar situation? I think that would be extremely helpful so we don't
have to get into this fight for other on-going ALTO drafts.

Many thanks!

Best,
Kai

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:53 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:

> Hi Adam and Benjamin,
>
> Regarding the citation of RFC 8259, in the Introduction, using the JSON
> format as specified in RFC 8259 may actually cause backwards compatibility
> issues with RFC7285 that uses the JSON format specified in RFC7159. Would
> it be OK to cite 7159 in the Introduction and add the paragraph below in
> section 2.2.2 “Compatibility with legacy ALTO Clients" ?
>
> Thanks,
> Sabine
>
> <t>Last, for backwards compatibility with <xref target="RFC7285"/>,
>           this extension encodes its requests and responses using the JSON
>           Data Interchange Format specified in <xref target="RFC7159"/>.
>           The latter has been obsoleted by <xref target="RFC8259"/>,
>           that among others makes UTF-8 mandatory for text encoding to
>           improve interoperability. Therefore, Clients and Servers
> supporting
>           ALTO Calendars SHOULD use UTF-8 for text encoding while still
> being able to
>           successfully read texts in other encodings such as UTF-16 and
> UTF-32.</t>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 10:25 PM
> To: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <
> sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org; Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia -
> US/Naperville) <vijay.gurbani@nokia.onmicrosoft.com>; alto-chairs@ietf.org;
> alto@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)
>
> On 1/25/19 10:06 AM, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> > [[SR]] The purpose is actually to lighten the reading. Would the
> following addition to paragraph 3 of section 4.1.3 be OK ?
> > "The Server returns Calendars with arrays of 12 numbers. To lighten the
> text, the arrays in the provided example are symbolized by expression
> "[v1,v2, ... v12]" that is otherwise not valid in JSON. The same type of
> symbolization is used in the example Server responses."
>
>
> That seems a reasonable approach. Thanks!
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>