Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <> Thu, 28 July 2016 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D5712D84B; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.808
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uo9tvN1ajJ_T; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C3B12D83A; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2734; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469721954; x=1470931554; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=T0+7G8nrh0IFeIDeBcmxQeTvQBXRpPwNZYJPtmLjBnM=; b=IjPYzGdvlGQBWxzyOCaWvajFsbxpWezBCe7y55H13zewoGa5j80JxiiQ Gw5rEJNVotQ5/o9494PduQXBQHb5Wi5CXWYCpiemTrnMD9tHQWD0Bj5NW LgKGYbi1da0jSldYG0Fk9h/oFEnFqOaZfuOjFwOX59ZfPEFHNyDvP4Khi o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,434,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="302942224"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Jul 2016 16:05:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6SG5rkm022501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:05:53 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:05:52 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:05:52 -0400
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
Thread-Index: AQHR6OUaM+GnspnceUCNhGvvMyCTeKAuRRaA
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:05:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:05:56 -0000

I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated publish of the two documents.  But having our side ready to go, including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in that process.

I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a downref. 

Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to ECMA-404bis (with details left out)?  That would make it *very* clear to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing.

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <> wrote:
> This document should not progress further at the current time.  This document
> should not even have progressed to last call status.
> This document has an unusual normative reference to ECMA-404.  This document
> also has wording to the effect that both IETF and ECMA will work to keep the
> documents consistent with each other.  The version of ECMA-404 referenced,
>, has no
> similar commitment from ECMA, nor indeed any reference, normative or
> otherwise, to any IETF document at all.
> Before this document can progress in its current form there needs to be a
> draft of the new version of ECMA-404 that lays out the commitment from ECMA.
> The draft needs to be available before the next last-call for this document so
> that the commitments stated by ECMA can be checked against the commitments
> stated by IETF.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> On 07/18/2016 05:58 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> This starts the Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02, ending on July 31.
>> Please send all comments to this list ( or the draft author/editor (  Any and all comments are welcome, including simple statements that this document is ready to progress.
>> Thank you,
>> - JSONbis Chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list

Joe Hildebrand