IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [Json] JSON mailing list and BoF

Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
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 DBCDE21F8DF2; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ub0I6Zom5Z-O; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-f174.google.com (mail-ea0-f174.google.com [209.85.215.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C434121F8B83; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 1so2937644eaa.33 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/1050v0OHHVI6tl9cznJfv0TC0TpoWImcQlCarHffps=; b=lUTAUvaZP7EZPNVZLBnGbuqyAJhtL4Sg6/NcEqJ5NB5ESOnWLiIg37ZsqiPt1Lv9Vh 4i+B6cbSYLMFggURSO4J/u7OoX1UNdF+fvLqjulfU002iUlcNyL6qv9hy8TyDD6lOIgj zdlgsFcrP+v+3rkpiAvvsLeXrD6zL5yqXqwv+kKGYqNoCBN/YQARgxi+r31FKS2dLhUd ivzct2YUmJgAK4K14srnfy0P4BlAvs+A1zQZcpQwCdwl2WEjxoRIYH7M3+Ud565YVMwi p6JdCqa18xl+YIYhW1NzaCyrDiPewmraBVOh6NMdjO5nQgcWvZxGzzDo2pRGN5Hh0TvV lJcg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.183.198 with SMTP id q46mr59595060eem.1.1361295443003; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.14.1.7 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:37:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89694A@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <7EB82E7A-F664-46F8-8137-83DF0C3F5536@tzi.org> <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89694A@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:37:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CALcybBBqkQ9ifKFf4Y6NdRZMGLnzWKDC-yLSheBfHCaQZ0-wgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Json] JSON mailing list and BoF
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: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:37:36 -0000

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
<jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> and potentially Date.
>
> If we were going to standardize this, the IETF would need full change
> control.
>

Another unrelated point: I see no reason why a transmitted JSON
document (called a "JSON text") has to be a "container" and not any
JSON value.

What was the motivation behind this in the RFC in the first place?

-- 
Francis Galiegue, fgaliegue@gmail.com
Try out your JSON Schemas: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email