Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 15 March 2014 01:59 UTC
Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
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 5259B1A022D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 RQRUTQNWvpH1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f180.google.com (mail-ve0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9B31A0229 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f180.google.com with SMTP id jz11so3504867veb.39 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:59:43 -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=Y8a0l8wAwqmOSgkY+5pBjaaEaAbk6IHeK/5wYuRdPwI=; b=i09PhcjR1Ka9quScmmsUKcRJaZDJG+i4XtVdVOnsH65t4PG38FFTUZqvfzl+VUOjJY Lz2RFcGcoSpe0jNr0EsO34PbYJcsIq+QLQlHawpesomWKM8bMN0+BOwmKZ1UDtjNayq+ pJ6NOJMQVF+41P265mpi0QTWpLDg13BkuhUzCZn+SbH7UHumjqSabzuKYrucznOB6ax+ t2h2xKPRwtgyFs7vgJ+56rVMDOtJ/MY8AvKp3KHaWFCwrov57j/K2VQ3ELk2VBRujoJJ jFNWr+LwwhEUbsBYUc+uJcA2tHciyVKjx0pJB3EBQ0iMLqxMKtkfLDLqwX3BO5wrRgIR leJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+7sfzm9h7Vk3buJwMumoVtV3S8M1RjbbHKRTPYpbFGb/FWdDpT0kbU3SJuYpFTTq/eEfK
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.221.29.137 with SMTP id ry9mr9167334vcb.6.1394848783016; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <420F0699-9F27-435E-924C-28966A743EAF@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>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:59:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iv=pUmq1Jdi+VkFnEG0+Ef7pBnSMtPdVNaHFxu6x5RFBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133935c3a3c5c04f49b8af2"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/4dNZ9MLEgejCmgscCWRD32fnR1w
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, 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 01:59:52 -0000
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. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote: > On Mar 14, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I think RFC 6962 could be improved substantially with some greater > adherence to some structure. > > Could you maybe take that discussion to the trans working group? It is not > relevant to this WG. Thanks! > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >
- [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to… Matt Miller
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Nico Williams
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Stefan Drees
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… David Rosenborg
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Paul Hoffman
- [Json] Do not use ABNF for JSON schemas! Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or No… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] Do not use ABNF for JSON schemas! Tim Bray