Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter

I’m generally opposed to this work item on the basis that nobody has
provided an example of an existing RFC that would clearly be improved by
the availability of such a thing.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:

> The chairs are seeking comment on whether or not the WG wants to adopt
> one or more nomenclature / schema / description documents in the WG
> charter. A few such documents have been brought to the WG, but our
> initial take is that the WG doesn't want to make any of them WG
> documents. They could proceed towards becoming RFCs without any
> interaction from the WG, depending on the wishes of the ADs and/or the
> Independent Stream Editor. Once a nomenclature document is an RFC, other
> RFCs could use it to describe the JSON in those later RFCs.
>
> Please speak up whether or not you believe our charter should be amended
> to include a work item that would adopt one or more nomenclature /
> schema / description documents.
>
>
> --Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>