Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 91B4B21E80B6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.076
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 2Ml6wP8Zpdin for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E56721E8034 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E39264060 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=PJNPyjKSscyLyN4zhbgH 2G6RarI=; b=fLrH/GuSSHAwH0D8wseznXm6AvkHRyq3U/I0qA5+vxMQ1dASA0cY tR4RWsIItvvgbVpxGpHEHnYiREaAkC9JctlBO3eBFVXcEKopKrhi9Z8ZRbs6iC4M 792lewt7k9eEFP+sMgY0NiFUxTMxppBvmzFJLjYS456/auvzutwnYuU=
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6A2826405D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbjt11 with SMTP id jt11so1141274pbb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.228.234 with SMTP id sl10mr1618283pbc.25.1348091810422; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.20.194 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiyohqhRA+m3M0ViSkt74q3yOfUkZj8b-upc4V_qUv22g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjYj0gd3Cxjj8WFcLy-zgBwfVDCPaRGcNSgOHD9m_07yw@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBCqAMLi8v61u1+oPpHaMpHrK4ufUm6fUUyMb8XMmz8JSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwiyohqhRA+m3M0ViSkt74q3yOfUkZj8b-upc4V_qUv22g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:56:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjo7EfyLDnmhUs4T-=GPKh9uuZY57UmWxRQUaP+pzXGWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Schema considered harmful
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, 19 Sep 2012 21:56:51 -0000

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> My observation about XML Schema and ASN.1 schema is that the groups
> producing them should not have been allowed a monopoly. The ASN.1 case is

Huh?  What's the complaint here?  That you weren't there?  Or in the
committee?  Or that a committee (or WG, or whatever) was involved?
Why bother standardizing anything if there are to be no
committees/WGs?  How would we do that?  Would there be SDOs that only
rubber-stamp standards proposals brought to them but which can make no
changes to those proposals, just yay/nay?

> actually understandable as it was a schema design group that developed the
> encodings. But even so it was design by a committee.

wat?   First you complain about someone having a monopoly, but then
you say that as long as it's the same people that developed some other
related standard it's OK?  But then... you're asking for a monopoly
and thus contradicting yourself.

If you have comments on proposals, or as to how to improve existing
standards, then state them.  If you want a different process to apply
to standardization of JSON Schema, well, say so, but this is the IETF,
and the IETF process will apply at the IETF.  If you want to change
the IETF process then make proposals to that effect.

Nico
--