Re: [Json] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-json-01-01: (with COMMENT)

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 02 April 2014 20:29 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+hdci3cqOJ-EFXVoJAqk2Ygr+4ZLxT5nOWC=zwe6nURA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140402201319.14893.23931.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJ+hdci3cqOJ-EFXVoJAqk2Ygr+4ZLxT5nOWC=zwe6nURA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:29:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iveTahnHLLaNr5-nW4EpgVwKb5CEhqjPUMddiApqe+OcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/4IfoyeZeeccwWuK5Pn6paCaQe9Y
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-json-01-01: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

+1 on explicit invitation.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t get
much/any reaction, but there’s nothing to lose.

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>> I am ambivalent about external review. On the one hand, these activities
>> are really IETF internal. On the other, we've been trying to develop a
>> liaison relationship with Ecma. Input on this question welcome.
>
> Given what's happened with Ecma and what we're trying to make happen,
> I think it would be a mistake not to loop them in.  On the other hand:
> are they even on new-work?  External review won't be sufficient -- an
> explicit message to Ecma inviting their review would be needed.
>
> Barry
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

[Json] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-json-01… Pete Resnick
Re: [Json] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-jso… Barry Leiba
Re: [Json] Pete Resnick's Yes on charter-ietf-jso… Tim Bray