Re: [Json-canon] Dropping "Comparable" JSON

Bret Jordan <jordan.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 12 February 2019 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jordan.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1954012426A for <json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:55:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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] 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 JukVmFwHieqa for <json-canon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x12e.google.com (mail-it1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F97C1200ED for <json-canon@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id v72so8204220itc.0 for <json-canon@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:55:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=p04b/FHUlj2xWLBNa8Kk9/UdRpOfzRJyrKRVeKvgxvM=; b=ETT1K23ryuGM3vZa9U+550r8STl3nv2YPSXeiHwP8jv8Xf5OK3Fdbnu1m6Ppz4Hy/d QE06aJ9FAA0mXI1vjRbDT2492fiqcO9MdXLCng2+gy7p0ba70UiYQpymteeheh3Y30KC 1uRTFt+7sKyJOTpDLd3omhvLNIyX1pQ8IiFfSbuSBx6lzg/6dmvRxxWfjTaMiOY1JPz4 Zg6R+/qUoj37e8Ld7WefOA2ua2+GeNLx8Hjn+t6njhWM50JfqenKni+YWt6fIhXbgrkN enkw5u2kjJswtuv/DtLm+4ihXUkBRQ7QvSaq6xkzxDJbFz5LB+Ye21aDMsSRhMKt07cD tbxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=p04b/FHUlj2xWLBNa8Kk9/UdRpOfzRJyrKRVeKvgxvM=; b=dIhpKdJUj0/qZTPoIdqdIvJN7B6mKc3p1Fh0RzEuMvMY5bnY+HgdWlz0WK18zfnRMb SVJdu2zpVpUiYi0QWvHIeO+IvjH/0L9p76eHZ0f6JvPpMrxm9g2DPpuzAGJK96/Uqytz Nqr6h4BIOk48HK2fWuX4q6Aer85Db+Va/916lOQzX0khZ406/A5PRZpNNCKB14bqUGsE Ez9IN5xEkcwoL4y4a+k4jJLK9RjW83A0GeOVs+Ak9j/DrqrybDtxRqe3hDzz+cxMYTNs bJ2y2WIXKimHi+/1G18hH/Yd/GLeBQHSYdKILgxb1ZKpNs4V77Mo5RDvAf9xXEBafHe0 G+iA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZdHTwSXvqEQ6NyVWtpn6/AvO/vndSwhwHitPlamUE58efeQu7Q CjHbcQPjDC637glH97fU2Os=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZWXtkFUDEU1E0KYoB8uoGobo1KyKqOlYSFd735HhujL3MabLrRvAP86Lh1HyVmGGvl+OUSXg==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:5546:: with SMTP id e67mr2222463jab.10.1549983326290; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2605:a601:a028:986:90f5:f3fe:6967:5a85? ([2605:a601:a028:986:90f5:f3fe:6967:5a85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a21sm6061785iod.63.2019.02.12.06.55.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 06:55:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Bret Jordan <jordan.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <874D3146-9FD5-4998-B051-5D3244A91B9F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D3646832-7471-4FCA-8809-E5CDAFA90B5F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 07:55:22 -0700
In-Reply-To: <7f7557ae-c86a-013a-6758-279034728be5@gmail.com>
Cc: json-canon@ietf.org, Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
References: <00dc01d4b51c$618cdbc0$24a69340$@augustcellars.com> <f4b64343-e8db-57cf-152e-aeba44dc4863@gmail.com> <060401d4c035$d35d3e10$7a17ba30$@augustcellars.com> <7f7557ae-c86a-013a-6758-279034728be5@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json-canon/uUc15mBerDNu5KZBUK-prOJP_sw>
Subject: Re: [Json-canon] Dropping "Comparable" JSON
X-BeenThere: json-canon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Canonicalization <json-canon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json-canon>, <mailto:json-canon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/json-canon/>
List-Post: <mailto:json-canon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-canon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json-canon>, <mailto:json-canon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:55:30 -0000

I would rather focus on the key deliverable and punt on this for a future version. 


Thanks,
Bret
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."

> On Feb 9, 2019, at 12:05 AM, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
> This is an open question.
> Ideally you want a design to cover as many use-cases as possible, right?
> Sometimes that ambition turns out to be counterproductive making your most important use-cases suffer.
> 
> 
> When I in retrospect look at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-04
> I begin to wonder if "Comparable" JSON (in the draft named "true" canonicalization) shouldn't be a "Feature at Risk" as the W3C folks call this.
> 
> Why is that?  Well, to begin with "Comparable" JSON leaves a lot of thorny decisions to some other document or entity to worry about:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-04#appendix-E.2
> 
> In addition, having actually built a few test systems comparing JSON data, I note that the possibility for creating 100% stable input data is unlikely to be particularly common. Time stamps, transaction IDs and last but not least crypto, makes this requirement rather hard to achieve in practice.
> 
> That is, "Comparable" JSON appears to be a difficult edge case and IMHO [probably] not worth dealing with. The 80/20 rule is pretty much a fact.
> 
> This seems like an ideal topic for the BoF session we have requested :-)
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> Anders