Re: [Json] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-json-00-01: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Ok, thanks Barry.

Regards, Benoit
>> Probably a detail, but it puzzles me. Maybe I read too much into this...
> I think you are.
>
>> "Any changes that break compatibility with existing implementations of
>> either RFC 4627 or
>> the ECMAScript specification will need to have very strong justification
>> and broad support."
>>
>> Versus
>>
>> "Any changes that break compatibility with the RFC 4627 or
>> the ECMAScript specifications will need to have very strong
>> justification
>> and broad support."
>>
>> Is this intentional that you mention the existing implementations of RFC
>> 4627?
> Yes.
>
> Consider that this is an essentially similar situation to what we had
> in going from PS to DS... except here we're going from Informational
> to PS.  The point, though, is that we have a mature protocol that's
> moving in the Standards Track (here, *into* the Standards Track).  The
> justification required for a change increases with the level of
> disruption it would cause to what's out there.
>
> Errata are easy.
> Useful changes that are fully compatible with current implementations
> are still easy; the conversation should be brief.
> Important changes that break compatibility are still within scope, but
> require a very strong justification, and will probably involve a lot
> more discussion.
>
> Your version (the second above) doesn't make much sense: changes to
> the spec are changes to the spec.  The point is to consider the effect
> those changes will have on implementations.
>
> Barry
>
>