Re: [Json] Obsoletes RFC 4627
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 06:02 UTC
Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
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 3C01411E8121 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.662
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.652, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMCgVC3fegvw for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FB311E8124 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hz10so1530348vcb.40 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8Hsg8zsVX5RC5vNyvJ3x8EPKzKQ1PgxyqI+J4J1kDHs=; b=iuuuW9g1UKQ6C5t0AThLq0YN/W0DaQm5YBjdrDHO8qSij3bOIvNS1PBUiAEyBKUoAB xEKjD2pCWfpCqTIAX67ryEGnVzRI3Uq5wgjxLW56bMTgkwLqjB+dhs3zHAQZrxGR76HB elGVz+6rV7LiWlPU20f+/yXu1G35+SdGlT/CGdHSd5gO0YuT6s8SAa2qqPosfh7yJsjS rQ1aFRuJn6Fif7QK/jE3Ua6U6HuSjSGfZXMmZLS+xsLOqv3RzeeiU7a83OMsgkVBi/fp vNjhmtgZWV/mrp1vPmchwoSfM6MEl7fB1Uaq+Fs2j4A1vDZa4axLCoBYMSr2O1Q+PMCn bb9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQntw/ZLr7AgtRqw7t16bVKXwV18voGYGtt0Kx/OP7RwRtAoMz62QuyH742KIsv01P3B1MRi
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.173.165 with SMTP id bl5mr3995936vdc.18.1380261772455; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.64.201 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <5245038F.4060206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <B2706F01-E791-40AE-AC54-6DC7C3E2A0E3@mnot.net> <95AA0989-6473-4E83-861B-E84140EC083F@vpnc.org> <5245038F.4060206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:02:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it0fBdZHSWqjqNk2jkPx-QvzgB-heCC8fh6NLgcXRNmag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec51b9cfda5032d04e7573ce3"
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Obsoletes RFC 4627
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:02:58 -0000
<wearing-editor-hat>where do “obsoletes” assertions go in the draft?</wearing-editor-hat> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:03 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>wrote: > On 2013/09/27 9:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> <no hat> >> >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Mark Nottingham<mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> * Shouldn't this document obsolete 4627? >>> >> >> Er, yes, it probably should. Does anyone have any objection to this? >> > > None at all here. If it doesn't obsolete RFC 4627, why would we have done > all the work? > > Regards, Martin. > > > --Paul Hoffman >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/json<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/json<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json> >
- [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-json… Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-… R S
- Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-… Tim Bray
- [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the curren… Paul Hoffman
- [Json] "suffer fatal runtime exceptions" Paul Hoffman
- [Json] -0.0 Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] "suffer fatal runtime exceptions" R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Json] "suffer fatal runtime exceptions" Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] -0.0 John Cowan
- Re: [Json] -0.0 John Cowan
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Paul Hoffman
- [Json] Authorship Paul Hoffman
- [Json] Obsoletes RFC 4627 Paul Hoffman
- [Json] Section 1.3, "Changes from RFC 4627" Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Authorship R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Authorship Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Json] Authorship John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Obsoletes RFC 4627 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] Obsoletes RFC 4627 Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Obsoletes RFC 4627 Eliot Lear
- Re: [Json] Authorship Eliot Lear
- Re: [Json] [authorship] (was: Working Group Last … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] Section 1.3, "Changes from RFC 4627" Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] Obsoletes RFC 4627 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Json] Authorship Pete Resnick
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tony Hansen
- Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Authorship Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Json] -0.0 John Cowan
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 John Cowan
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Peter Patel-Schneider
- Re: [Json] -0.0 John Cowan
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] -0.0 R S
- Re: [Json] -0.0 John Cowan
- Re: [Json] -0.0 Carsten Bormann
- [Json] Change Control (was: Re: Authorship) Martin J. Dürst
- [Json] Indentation (was: Re: Change Control) Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] Indentation (was: Re: Change Control) Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Indentation (was: Re: Change Control) Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Change Control (was: Re: Authorship) Jorge Chamorro
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tony Hansen
- [Json] ECMA-262 normative? Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? John Cowan
- Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? Eliot Lear
- [Json] Change control for the MIME media type Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tony Hansen
- Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] ECMA-262 normative? Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tony Hansen
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… Tony Hansen
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Jorge Chamorro
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tony Hansen
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… Tony Hansen
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Jorge Chamorro
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Jorge Chamorro
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… Manger, James H
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… R S
- Re: [Json] Differences between RFC 4627 or the cu… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… John Cowan
- Re: [Json] section 1 paragraph 2 on what JSON can… Manger, James H