Re: [Json] JSON Schema

[Henry Andrews <[e-mail]>]

hmm- there's a bit in that last message that could be read as me assuming
that I would lead a working group if I were interested in doing so.  I am
not making that assumption :-D

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Henry Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks, Paul, this is very helpful.
>
> My inclination for now is for JSON Schema to continue on its current
> course as we are.  I do not think the current set of drafts are the right
> base to start from.  Again, this just my personal view, but I'd like to
> work within the JSON Schema community on its own more to solve some of the
> most obvious problems before throwing it in a blender with other
> proposals.  I had not intended on contacting the IETF about a working group
> for at least two more drafts- I only started this thread due to a request.
>
> There is also the question of whether I would be the right point person
> for bringing JSON Schema into a working group.  I'm not sure I would be, so
> if someone else steps up in the meantime or wants to start working on some
> schema system and use JSON Schema as it is as one input, I would be fine
> with that.  Honestly, nearly every comment from anyone (here or elsewhere)
> that I've heard about the working group process has, um... not really
> excited me about it.
>
> So I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing, and note that I'm happy to help
> if someone else wants to lead a schema working group of some sort.  If no
> one steps up, I may eventually do so.  Otherwise I need to spend some time
> thinking about which paths forward would be best for the JSON Schema
> community.  And if a schema working group emerges and goes in a different
> direction, I can look at how to help the JSON Schema community transition
> towards that.
>
> thanks,
> -henry
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> A few procedural notes to correct some misunderstandings. (Wearing no
>> hats, just lots of scars from earlier IETF work on JSON and lots of other
>> data formats...)
>>
>> On 21 Jan 2018, at 18:48, Henry Andrews wrote:
>>
>> So... the point of me sending this email was to answer a request made to
>>> the JSON Schema project that I investigate the working group.  The clear
>>> answer to that is that this working group is closed, and a new one would
>>> need to be chartered.
>>>
>>
>> If you want an IETF standard, yes.
>>
>> It's not clear to me that we would want to charter
>>> such a group now, although I would be interested in anyone's input on
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> There appears to be interest in something around schema for JSON; it is
>> not clear if there is interest in starting from the specific spec at
>> https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec. I bet there is some
>> interest in that, and some interest in something else. This is quite
>> typical of requests for the IETF to adopt work that originated outside the
>> IETF, with mixed results in any of of "adopt with the intention of making
>> only minor changes", "adopt and make major changes", and "start from
>> scratch while getting inspiration from the existing work".
>>
>> The IETF sucks at this, as do most other SDOs. We're just more public
>> about our suckage.
>>
>> There are several projects
>>> underway in the same general space, some with quite a bit of momentum of
>>> their own.  One of them may be a better choice for an IETF working group,
>>> I'm not in a position to say one way or the other.
>>>
>>
>> None of us are; that's what consensus is for.
>>
>> Filing issues or asking questions on our slack channel will probably work
>>> better than hi-jacking this mailing list, now that I understand it is no
>>> longer active. :-)
>>>
>>
>> What you have done is *not* hijacking this mailing list: it's a
>> completely appropriate use of it. And the list is active, as you have just
>> seen. It's just not an IETF WG any more.
>>
>> I would be interested in pursuing the IETF process (heavyweight or not)
>>>
>>
>> It will be the former :-(
>>
>> , if
>>> there is interest from the appropriate segment of the IETF community.
>>>
>>
>> This list is a good proxy for that appropriate segment. Everyone who is
>> interested in this topic should feel free to use the mailing list for it.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>    -
>
>    *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
>    [e-mail]
>    <https://www.cloudflare.com/>
>
>    1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
>    -
>
>


-- 

   -

   *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
   [e-mail]
   <https://www.cloudflare.com/>

   1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
   -