IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: #225: JFV Revisited

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Fri, 12 August 2016 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916DE12D986 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XoYi7R__kA2N for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED4612D949 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bY6Vi-0005f1-Lc for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:04:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:04:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bY6Vi-0005f1-Lc@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1bY6Vc-0005eK-Sa for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:04:00 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1bY6VY-000836-LK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:03:59 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.40.111]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52700E6EB9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:03:15 +1200 (NZST)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <64A60DE8-C2DD-4F61-89D7-EF5449E1F29E@mnot.net> <CABkgnnV+N5ZOm5CUszc1WM=eDk=2c=A8__PhiuZ0MCqLPpZjSA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <66c3fdf1-34f7-6c9b-e12b-d10d16509e8e@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:03:11 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV+N5ZOm5CUszc1WM=eDk=2c=A8__PhiuZ0MCqLPpZjSA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.271, BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bY6VY-000836-LK 92c7649d7ea4f72e1c2290980045afaf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #225: JFV Revisited
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/66c3fdf1-34f7-6c9b-e12b-d10d16509e8e@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32263
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 12/08/2016 6:42 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 11 August 2016 at 14:52, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> Thoughts (here or there)?
> 
> I thought that the direction of the discussion was promising.  A
> bespoke format, though more work, is entirely justified in this case.

Ditto. I was okay with JSON only for the short period where the Draft
was speaking of it as the format for use in RFCs (as replacement for
ABNF) not on-wire format for delivery.

What will be will be, but I wont pretend to like it (JSON). Even YAML
would be better than JSON, but that would require use of obs-fold.

Amos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email