IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: #225: JFV Revisited

Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com> Tue, 16 August 2016 00:26 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 6B54212D5CE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 5wuPy0Kd225N for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:26:07 -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 4F2F212D5BC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bZS8R-0006p0-GH for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:21:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:21:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bZS8R-0006p0-GH@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 <igrigorik@gmail.com>) id 1bZS8I-0006oF-Dg for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:21:30 +0000
Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.161.172]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <igrigorik@gmail.com>) id 1bZS8D-0005DV-1K for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:21:29 +0000
Received: by mail-yw0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j12so35077581ywb.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=n5sjD5UgkG7b38jM3TUfihTX2IzRnw/UYc8pUmjTRxI=; b=1CDSDIWSspiXAs1xeuWOHG0+EZfs20jgBhqNIK6oPa7jhKf/P1h0xEmBMp+8inC27V nGsidy5uvDbDZoJm8yqE3mgnQA1Bz8sivjHz8PTzIOoEHqnGVmvFem8mmfeA2ZctEKi7 AeSZ9gh9d17S0hBewVmjP20MFZzAvEoHgYiSBxgOcMupM3nAHJ99XD8n0M45svVHFpKM e0BmunxkOamxf9OfbxyEAiOtwTFHtYme6jKVV2OETppo4IL5hduR0rFBWT3E51kVRlpW HvTHqj7uqQSSrlmMEdYTtqX+LC2szvE9KmUIjU1GLshaOZgC6skPRcNZ4HTsEPiWDDZH k+rg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=n5sjD5UgkG7b38jM3TUfihTX2IzRnw/UYc8pUmjTRxI=; b=ceefJaE59pkeCIH/7jtEqnbbs6kawNLHRQXEnE0xyFB28EOkySYHis0xzUWTridR75 yqU1H1z88NQXNB2WfjPCiMfezVH9OQx8ZCbq+maO3QDWAM/NPNFSOcz0THLm881z7SMD PhGHxZkHMBCMuEpdYh1/0+6NYrsApu7vZLL5huD0atkrloXBA4wi3lVVeg9bNAVmgsjN hYd0VKK6XP5RRnMFHpyT7Av+NPmWmvl7gxlh6dJwzQQVww4jM+kD/bu0W4yVKZdqfZ7p m+TLr/FlEfoksReTd+Y5uqb/183eHYN5XfPIll15dcHqyYpXWLOBRBlLZ+y/Wg6lC0Yl KX6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutSSThj9XRt6qyMrlS3I6CJP1xy5fSbz5jCXyWHJmqvq7q1+6PnDyACxB7nvsOD5OzEoLGzCS6nECpNhQ==
X-Received: by 10.13.241.199 with SMTP id a190mr21514473ywf.141.1471306858577; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.193.2 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <fe65d4ed-5e29-1e19-6796-0eda8cd1f2fe@treenet.co.nz>
References: <64A60DE8-C2DD-4F61-89D7-EF5449E1F29E@mnot.net> <CABkgnnV+N5ZOm5CUszc1WM=eDk=2c=A8__PhiuZ0MCqLPpZjSA@mail.gmail.com> <66c3fdf1-34f7-6c9b-e12b-d10d16509e8e@treenet.co.nz> <e0fffee7-a7c6-e515-e02e-3d14f44a4597@gmx.de> <fe65d4ed-5e29-1e19-6796-0eda8cd1f2fe@treenet.co.nz>
From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:20:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKRe7JE4z7XEpa-LyHDc70=TVO3_26=8wm69qT_5LicaTsG7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c032720a94399053a25525d"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.161.172; envelope-from=igrigorik@gmail.com; helo=mail-yw0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.858, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bZS8D-0005DV-1K 04fd7d8b0d63bce5c071c0a9f6c58f8c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #225: JFV Revisited
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKRe7JE4z7XEpa-LyHDc70=TVO3_26=8wm69qT_5LicaTsG7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32271
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 Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> C) Specify conventions for people to use when defining headers, to avoid
> the most common footguns involved in that process (as well as generation,
> parsing, etc.).... I think people saw JSON as a (... snip ... practical)
> means to an end.
>

^ yes, that.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
 wrote:

> But I dont want to waste my time, if there is a "sub rosae" requirement
> for the result to be JSON?
>

No, there isn't. But JSON, despite the downsides that have been brought up
here, *is* very appealing on a practical level.

I'd be more than happy to see viable alternative proposals that address all
of the above points.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 13/08/2016 3:08 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 2016-08-12 09:03, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >> On 12/08/2016 6:42 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> >>> On 11 August 2016 at 14:52, Mark Nottingham 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.
> >
> > It never did that.
> >
>
> Well the text in the pre- ietf'96 Draft certainly fooled me.
>
> Amos
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email