Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 02 November 2011 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD4611E8149 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 03:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.879, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w31Itq8ddafS for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 03:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861BE11E8142 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 03:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.71.208]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 721EC22E1FB; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 06:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <1320187375.2622.25.camel@neutron>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:18:49 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5C4A4646-3160-40FA-BF64-6F6290CB1D4C@mnot.net>
References: <1320187375.2622.25.camel@neutron>
To: Paul C. Bryan <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:19:02 -0000

If it needs to be said, I'm +1 on this.

I don't think we need a separate WG on this -- it's relatively simple (and should stay that way). The important thing is to get momentum behind a single way to do it. APPAWG can accomplish that easily (and if it gets any harder, I'd recommend that the authors go Informational).

Cheers,


On 02/11/2011, at 9:42 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:

> I have published and have been maintaining a JSON Patch Internet-Draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-02
> 
> There's now at least three actively maintained implementations in as many programming languages. Interest has been expressed in moving this toward an RFC. I've discussed this briefly with Mark Nottingham, Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre, and consensus seems to be to raise this with APPSAWG and see if there's any interest in developing this on a standards track.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/