Re: [dispatch] JSONPath or JMESPath?
Glyn Normington <normingtong@vmware.com> Mon, 03 August 2020 14:06 UTC
Return-Path: <normingtong@vmware.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8AA3A0AB0 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 07:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=vmware.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lTUcEwqzRbkI for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 07:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam12on2087.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.237.87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13C963A0AAE for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 07:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=dldWB7sXp1+IjIeZt1ElNoTrGSH/t5dtEcc2IvJrHjq5FK2xG0ib5Q/NrCHCiq8piRnyTmaxddXEJk7YoWqVuVjYS8ou3E9XBa1kGMR/4gO6LC8xX4yE7Rqhhz+GEmLOhvPonFc1OhccXNxdmRscHrAl/APHANfKUFr/J+TojfgKFAsAGivmJ19/hbMAnHo+GYoG1UFnK+T5gWhqSQ68jpSjVfa8KlPQLkSq4VTLr1LYlmG2P4WD8uNUazxmlYDFZLYXFBUBTGHJC2tITarOp2S+cYxsTkdwAP8xtEn0ZXzXoQRtD45hfms2ZYjKueARIOaMqyg2vqPHvwM/RddNjQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FHTgj//pIPCeABf4YtJlVWp0prPvCTTg470o7CrBE28=; b=WFLjl+j89okOTqSyo9CWgxbfPv1e271RFdC6r+sDmP/OdT6/DHUYnNsAMbopPO80VKdbSshccsyXChXhPT4d1fYngWtpFAqh4LrAfleXcJZj/zHtwST3FFnyHx7q2qkbMBBbRQXGodnhnPB/MfrX/vtQsyAK4GQO1LI8av+NYP7X133gY3DS2rhVy3j3f0+sJBP784KirOcXD/lTM//5lCBocytprmpifUjz1Jlla4+KkVwktZP5ry4SzW3q2Fca/VO1F9UxWxK8w21N0pyUpjvI2nNtAbOr2W/wtKqgup7dxlvKgT4rxYdCyb/pOqa5zKtsOwG6FYZJHjPLk6q1Mw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vmware.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=vmware.com; dkim=pass header.d=vmware.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vmware.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FHTgj//pIPCeABf4YtJlVWp0prPvCTTg470o7CrBE28=; b=kKh1s7lYpcOiDA0biTaLKZvCVdQQZB7G8DsUsKS0WcKQaCKd2N2pZghxWlBcxOZ1Y3vf1/ipDUL2wz9MsANyDvMqzjExVY7JttdG7m2CpYfaWVcHRlL4pHi3tDMVWv6IrVK5Kw9Jfugq2E6obSHtO1Tk/jLRayt2pycymBhYB4Y=
Received: from DM5PR0501MB3766.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:7c::29) by DM6PR05MB4314.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:9e::26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3239.9; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:06:32 +0000
Received: from DM5PR0501MB3766.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e93d:dbc3:e9ce:7bc8]) by DM5PR0501MB3766.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e93d:dbc3:e9ce:7bc8%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3261.014; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:06:32 +0000
From: Glyn Normington <normingtong@vmware.com>
To: Darrel Miller <Darrel.Miller=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] JSONPath or JMESPath?
Thread-Index: AQHWaZZ7NPtRChyZ5EOmdm2UGgqlJakma2aA
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:06:32 +0000
Message-ID: <1E1CECE4-8E69-4E1C-8429-70CBD044522A@vmware.com>
References: <DM6PR00MB08482BB8234F35A07BCC1F93F04D0@DM6PR00MB0848.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR00MB08482BB8234F35A07BCC1F93F04D0@DM6PR00MB0848.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=vmware.com;
x-originating-ip: [195.213.80.251]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 83a43280-027e-4e26-ccc6-08d837b66ce1
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4314:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB4314A3087BDA30711ACF86D8C34D0@DM6PR05MB4314.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: +QlzpQZQjbqWdbYc7ahKKzwbWqbfLn3E3yi3jQsXkWWXYfY2AAq+KyIEqLeJ+8+4fFXYv0iLK7QTScpL5WgDJOiaJFavY7jouiJHdapmkyKzxV26M3Fofs0og7/xc1TlUqczpoqTYdOiEilWrrczdl8YNnfoS4FcXIMkdZT2haiaS3VMKLEeRGdaf8c8VWyLV9bXqDbSUGw79ATFnfLXZsxdOgaUT4OIcuKsynQrnc3Y3dwyRWqK3ghEfFg94RVoUpB+2PmoINs85ydm9q9riT/ZCAxGHhK7T5B5iQpyYpfPevclqko/t1HHr6aN5WnTkq5aMMRhLIB8QaNRAkPKAIeRrbi15gsI2nK0UB44cOFBbHlGOxfxL4X2zngFlqR23XsbzcJFLJubog/DykP+vQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM5PR0501MB3766.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(26005)(5660300002)(186003)(53546011)(6506007)(2906002)(45080400002)(2616005)(478600001)(6486002)(8936002)(36756003)(316002)(8676002)(966005)(86362001)(71200400001)(66476007)(66556008)(91956017)(76116006)(83380400001)(64756008)(33656002)(66946007)(4326008)(6512007)(66446008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: +iRhrpXMb7kCt/HIeHOVg5e+Ay7h089oeSWRfnTwmI3huVDKHZOsJ6VQZ2mRjAmGUi3ChIW4PdN8+FI04FxB/S37P5LZz6CXThnrW2SQfMqXsPiJWtxDUGi7WiCKj8P1eBBnqr39ewXO+8xHPnJJMxQqLrCJ9rG9HidBULL38bt+kmk2o1cZ+oNsF6esrshuON0YKX4tKO2RhallQT8LoLngMoh2qUaBX5av0j7maqcpKL+6GDum77UDNuoYEP6/1v4fs84Rkq/vkF8W3k1dejexf/mjhh/cbBzHSrsfde93hyEY6I8JtZd5N4WUp0+aFUPf8AVh7TYNWM6hljVR/YVQIRrkHzl3vK4FiFeteyUl2oGZAX7uKJZG33jQy+YG9fDqhQYW8jfi+IEyCfgpOjDCO5vIRiL0W2bpGxZgjorQe7j1Z8uyaiz9ribJs3NRwS3iT8chZMFJjYiprtaZNtua7k6LEYH+u0/ogRQ3z4V+nZBbamH8knv5lV/KkWIeAoK04lZYXWmVSoeC3VoHw2nWERdDiJWB87GU4Hxbnek8DsCUAclhe8zcqCXq52lmWJrRYqW1StQv6w1XbIjDV/utdABvWEmZeI0doukpnaKt3e5TyH/TFoHr8r6jlZB0HoYLwMfDETdxWMbD6BsnJA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C2E3C694663D244A8CB8FC9B92D811E6@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: vmware.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM5PR0501MB3766.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 83a43280-027e-4e26-ccc6-08d837b66ce1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Aug 2020 14:06:32.1808 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b39138ca-3cee-4b4a-a4d6-cd83d9dd62f0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: FQi/Amb9EkUFqv/d4Wsa0Pms1i2p2KRxrD+HGRmxXSj9dyn7QzH1z/VVP5abd9XwZzy+X4oBXYKOiQsCb5ggig==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4314
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/cyjvhtXH_dhJi58IFVgAMDxiOSU>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] JSONPath or JMESPath?
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:06:38 -0000
Hi Darrel Thanks for bringing up JMESPath. It’s certainly an excellent project. We have yet to agree a charter for the standardisation of JSONPath. I personally believe one goal should be to minimise the migration cost, both for users and maintainers of existing implementations. OTOH adopting JMESPath would save a tonne of spec work, so I guess it all depends on the goals we agree in the charter. I hope you can join in that discussion (when it gets going) over at jsonpath@ietf.org. Regards, Glyn > On 3 Aug 2020, at 14:27, Darrel Miller <Darrel.Miller=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > After reviewing the discussion from the Dispatch meeting related to the JSONPath standardization effort I noticed there was no mention of JMESPath (pronounced JamesPath) (https://www.jmespath.org ). > > In some recent specification work I was involved with, we were faced with the need for this type of query capability. Our investigation led us to move forward with JMESPath instead of JSONPath. The reasons included: > • It has a complete ABNF description https://jmespath.org/specification.html > • It has a compliance suite https://jmespath.org/compliance.html > • It has a reasonable set of language support https://jmespath.org/libraries.html > • JMESPath doesn’t have a dependency on an underlying scripting language > > > JMESPath came from the Python world and has been picked up by both AWS and Azure as a query capability in their command line tools. This drives a significant amount of exposure to developers. > https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/userguide/cli-usage-output.html#cli-usage-output-filter > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cli/azure/query-azure-cli?view=azure-cli-latest > > While I do believe there is value in standardizing a tech that has wide usage like JSONPath, due to the current challenges with JSONPath implementation variations, would it more valuable to try and coalesce the industry around an option that already has a formally defined grammar and compliance tests? > > Darrel > > > > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdispatch&data=02%7C01%7Cnormingtong%40vmware.com%7C4b6ede17c5284ea4ab1208d837b0fbfb%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637320580571160457&sdata=id58d2v1n61nlObWNXLt23pv2GIVxwEYtZy7xurVHjE%3D&reserved=0
- [dispatch] JSONPath or JMESPath? Darrel Miller
- Re: [dispatch] JSONPath or JMESPath? Glyn Normington
- Re: [dispatch] JSONPath or JMESPath? Davide Bettio
- Re: [dispatch] JSONPath or JMESPath? Mark Nottingham