IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sun, 06 January 2013 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBABC21F880E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:59:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 PbdZtyWkhynF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38ABE21F8758 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so18574008vcb.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:59:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YYhh5km5j7kE9zJr4pzCwScH4m4Oz6f799oypO21Af0=; b=zERSaEiftsN5VTh1KDSjbp+kOIrYhE4vCCOln6T2pbDFhteJmuIg6dhinCXvrpBSiH xsSmrLXHyYIhH11RHkWfocAYce4aZ9sYbkfhOC0Y/aw8dv9srFGK+WkAmp+lI8ff01uf yMxpdrzL77waqnPbeqV56g7WxU6o40JKzTgHgVt7I+1+hPN4D5Oj4v06kfJJI5F2lPZs sBe6CCrKCUBvnZc+rmJaM92uZvSueOG7SZfwyKU2nRnyfEgkzTWdVa4OxAS3j9TSkvLC gf4VcLWsKU7qIEQw9mlcgs2WHCC0gHrx9GwYR72CuuiAOsOpW2f6pi+4UKK0OaT8MjcJ SppA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.21.179 with SMTP id w19mr70681196vde.55.1357462786488; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.145.5 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:59:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ896FUhWJQyGVu54tv=hvC5FZDxKMowhdxk0GM1C9LrrNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: mnot@mnot.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:59:47 -0000

>Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted this spec to align with your software, it would have been much easier if you'd got involved before Last Call.

Why is it called <Last Call> if we don't accept any new input (e.g.,
draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07) . Why do we call RFC <Request For
Comment> if we don't want people to comment on (e.g. RFC2119).

We SHOULD discuss any input any time, thank the participant, and
accept only consensus on each input at any phase of time.

AB

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status