Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <> Mon, 09 May 2016 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013E912B04D for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.517
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.517 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=-0.996, 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 0b2BU4XHW4R6 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 08:55:43 -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 D6BCF12D530 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2405; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462809341; x=1464018941; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=89RlI+XpH/aEmF7S3Y2v82bDyM60i0PKxH4/IhNL8x8=; b=bAS7coqnWiHofYir5GU7I99rxHezn1hGISw/SVvEb59d6Rb8VTMA0Qf0 86HcjVMboyDnZ8O2ZIm0CFw3CKRfqfomGuM78wnzmsa+Gn6N70ryXJr4n uXtMQuL39uoMt55Ho5P/HG/dtqJX0dJKlC6ZwH1KTMRwET8qkT7zg1/CW s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DfAgAgsjBX/4cNJK1dgziBWLh/DoF2h?= =?us-ascii?q?hACgTE4FAEBAQEBAQFlHAuEQgEBBCNWEAIBCEICAjIlAgQOE4gdryiQWQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ0IiBYIgk6HPyuCLgWYIgGDJ4Fog2SFKIFpjS6GK?= =?us-ascii?q?YkRAR4BQ4NriHUBfgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,601,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="105240107"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 May 2016 15:55:41 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u49Fte1M027285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 May 2016 15:55:41 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:55:40 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:55:40 -0500
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics
Thread-Index: AQHRoXBVlLbhRy7gw0mMULwD7976yZ+k6UIAgAAnegCAARyEgIAAr4SAgApKpwA=
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 15:55:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6B010BCB-1325-4E5D-8803-51DCBB21A6B3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Tim Bray <>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics
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: Mon, 09 May 2016 15:55:45 -0000

Hello all,

It appears we have rough consensus to include a combination of the following text suggested by Tim Bray:

    The reference to ECMA-404 in the previous sentence is normative,
    not with the usual meaning that implementors need to consult it
    in order to understand this document, but to emphasize that there
    are no inconsistencies in the definition of the term “JSON text”
    in any of its specifications. Note, however, that ECMA-404 allows
    several practices which this specification recommends avoiding in
    the interests of maximal interoperability.

With these additional points suggested by Joe Hildebrand:

    - The intent is that the grammar is the same between the two
      documents, although different descriptions are used.  If there a
      difference is found between them, ECMA and the IETF will work
      together to update both documents.

    - If an error is found with either document, the other should be
      examined to see if it has a similar error, and fixed if possible.

    - If either document is changed in the future, ECMA and the IETF will
      work together to ensure that the two documents stay aligned through
      the change.

If there are no objections, then Tim and Joe can finalize the text and include it with the next revision to draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.

Thank you,

- JSON Chair