IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 15 March 2014 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B0E1A0289 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mAAnIFGL4ndp for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262B51A0146 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s2FFETmm033273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:14:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOhqfJWX747jZs40amrdRV5T3aTxrMHsCvW-5jdN9zq40w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:14:28 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C77851F1-FBB2-47AD-B263-565593899D8C@vpnc.org>
References: <53238F2E.5010105@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itv0q7ZTrran+dKTcUxoSxNHYnND7yLmSPF35--iUMA+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi6Ha0r55vb3VNsgz40Bds6HYZ-aM9u-JwyVmoRDuZaWw@mail.gmail.com> <420F0699-9F27-435E-924C-28966A743EAF@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6iv=pUmq1Jdi+VkFnEG0+Ef7pBnSMtPdVNaHFxu6x5RFBQ@mail.gmail.com> <D93BF076-90B2-4AF0-BDD6-29BF4332AABF@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOhqfJWX747jZs40amrdRV5T3aTxrMHsCvW-5jdN9zq40w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/4V_kcNyK27_amTAbrmUlPgzqiaU
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <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: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:14:41 -0000

On Mar 14, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, I think it is relevant.  If someone were to show an example of an RFC where a hypothetical nomenclature/schema spec would have made the RFC better, that would be a really good argument in the current charter discussion.
>> 
>> Phill's proposal is to change the protocol from using ASN.1 to JSON. That's a discussion for the other WG, not here.
> 
> That's not Phil's proposal.  Look carefully!  Search for "array" and
> "object" in the RFC.
> 
> (I also wondered wth Phil was talking about when I glanced at that RFC.)

Wow, I totally missed that too. My apologies to Phill for cutting him off on the discussion of CT logs.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email