Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13.txt

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 17 September 2013 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BC611E8195 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.981
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.981 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 3g8DlPQnvp4s for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22d.google.com (mail-ve0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CCD21F9FC7 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id cz12so3789514veb.32 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zevzyyNiKZPoyKES/PfM/tGzQ6NCSJs9AJ/KXLjAXaQ=; b=bEMgkq49IRCxs1JmRakGaz+5u0GZbF1rM89Zl0/kZhurJHXrm1qmdtBfGAFsMAOFHh tWTQav9K8eI77pPeWVCeIyz0vNftQQOiroUc3BRz1C8aDllivO+LN7SLH06KYwxe+Iyh yGI/SGFTc144TKYzfxi9C/NzQozdHWXxfTR0GWb3iKSqpSR43ctj345W7GsE/caRB2+x xKQoPQlpLyJ92jDk5/kbtmg24c24LN1SgAZZXjb/wxnU0xmBwpWjZf8rb4yOc5haTWqc wSWAYnVbWptIFwmePZ9S18xKQPBQJlDbepyuGJXQfaJpW4VuAE+y5EDzdT+3udQMEepm Awlw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.46.72 with SMTP id i8mr30523012vcf.10.1379384911524; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.58.215.16 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYrnbr5-EPoTsa5wYJasL0pWsLbC2Sx05RMF+HxQ=v8Ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130915214012.3191.80822.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwYrnbr5-EPoTsa5wYJasL0pWsLbC2Sx05RMF+HxQ=v8Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:28:31 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9NfldPCNUVnuMmGXLY5jlNv2_ww
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDC8GU5VTuLhF1NdcWhcXaGrLfcs+zbuFguJdord5Kqew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2c674a8faa104e68b133e
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:28:33 -0000

>
> There's one thing that should be brought to the WG's attention, in case it
> will be a problem for anyone: The JSON format described in the media-type
> document changed a bit on the advice of a couple of IESG members more
> well-versed in such things than I am.  Anyone interested should go have a
> look and say something now if it's wrong-headed or going to create problems.
>

In particular, since I was one of the ADs who asked for the changes, I'd
like to say a few words about them.  There are three main points:

1. The content-type parameter was moved into the JSON object.  It seemed
wrong to overload the media type wrapper with something that really belongs
in the payload.

2. The set of reputons in the response was changed from a bunch of JSON
objects that all have the same name to a JSON array.  JSON says that object
names SHOULD be unique, and it seemed wrong to violate that.  And as long
as the object names don't matter, it makes more sense to use an array.

3. The mechanism for defining the JSON format is no longer ABNF.  The JSON
spec already defines the ABNF for JSON, including all the delimiter
characters, the DQUOTEs, where the whitespace can go, and so on with other
fidgety bits.  It seemed wrong and risky to re-define all that here.
 Instead, the JSON format is now defined in terms of JSON primitives.

I think these are all important changes that go in the right direction.
 But the working group should review that, and anyone who disagrees should
raise an issue.

Barry, Applications AD