IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 63DDB11E8152 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:13:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 lInin2PaTeAA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:13:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB67E11E80F6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x12so5938217wgg.25 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:13:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aAsnzOKVq0M4sesqy2+sa3bG2iKiNv9jkaBiNgu1VaQ=; b=PqyMIydN+Ld7ZnQzgDpbGjLFnyoVtJJzqtO/0RmeXzqj8P9lSHEWqux8APdw8lHrV4 RQMDCXwMxVqWB638d5nGFLTc9ymrpV3n3pa7iLZuaY+g6GxfO99SA8xokgaWvnI46WkS qIWX05hM+g9olzIpgbtsX9mEjGqVu6WMJNfUoDWwNDrRaERJVQqVWv8HlHJPfA7uzrdP 3DqKMT4ElGapABM8dEoSOLRX9vzwTpE9xAs3Dawa8VnVNnit8KCkSItKivkHGd4/b1Bd A+n64hrpf4rfQ+pHioCPPl/xM8W5S74oM6z7sTFFVjP/4b+j3DK5j7GbZ4d0qZHkMdx8 1L7A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.74.52 with SMTP id q20mr16558633wiv.60.1384769600853; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.13.230 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:13:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbdA7WXnYLZkho6DYP5Ojwh0SGyY6wGGukTjatbjhVQP_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwYC1_y8mB+b7TaGUs1iQfm06S-4wsZgb=hVZDAy1AB_Sw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaKCoV78vwX-n1ZDU-dKhuzWUNW72fcunF8MuEKj1GiKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa3fOKRy7=sJmjb198Az0FSveCZKJ=-DnAAAEujaq7BDA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6ivcqn=fZdfVup+8wyLE0XPdYJvkahJnFfNQj64gaf0Jaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbqHP2WT+ROa-cvJFKf6y86N2v6vsjv1jzevxsoQsx8Lw@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdA7WXnYLZkho6DYP5Ojwh0SGyY6wGGukTjatbjhVQP_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:13:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYR=S8h4SQ4hs-md-LqZFHkomxPfbqHw3xUt9KTpwHcaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0438907927a17504eb70ccb5"
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:13:29 -0000

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:41 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are existing implementers of the current spec.  If the wg doesn't
> move it forward,  I'll resubmit as an independent submission.
>

...which is fine, of course, unless this needs Proposed Standard status,
which is what you're currently requesting.  The independent stream cannot
produce standards track documents.  So unless you'd be satisfied with
Informational status, it needs to go through a WG (though not necessarily
this one) or be sponsored by an Area Director; either way, there needs to
be consensus recorded to proceed.  If there are only a couple of people
willing to review it, demonstrating that will be an uphill battle.

I think getting some people to (finally!) post comments in here is probably
the simplest path forward.  I'm not familiar enough with this space to be
able to suggest whom you might ask specifically, however.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email