Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 20 February 2013 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C1521E803A for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:31:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.797, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 NCkEKhyxkq6E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFCC21E8037 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.197.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C94E8509B6; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:30:58 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4D80AE86-4DBA-4236-9E2A-A06F2F9C30F7@mnot.net>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com> <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:31:04 -0000

On 21/02/2013, at 6:02 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>>>> My proposal is: do nothing.
>>> 
>>> -1.
>>> 
>>> There are places where RFC 4627 has SHOULDs where some processors do one thing and others do something different. That should be cleaned up in a standards-track RFC, and it should be done with lots of JSON developers and users having a discussion that comes to rough consensus.
>> 
>> One I-D as simple as this hardly justifies a WG.
> 
> Getting broad consensus on changing a standard that is implemented widely outside the IETF justifies the effort to have the time and space for consensus. This is *not* just IETF work.


I don't know. I think I'd be fine if we just asked Crockford (perhaps helped by a willing editor) to do 4627bis and then have the AD sponsor it on Standards Track.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/