Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-04
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 26 September 2013 23:36 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 E34AD21E8094 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.824
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Xo8AlM5a2cEK for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f174.google.com (mail-ve0-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BEB11E80E3 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id jy13so1457239veb.5 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:36:06 -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=pM/GxzoLj9VmH/3+287CYR66Xc+5TuiF/xE1wvFmvrs=; b=eXgFjOiN27WZp62YM5cRG+AS+tTD2DmQPNV2AeuIwQtqNamAWhAk3KV21qdNCzldmu n/X9ImbncTFJYm9JbZS3spnA89+3C5nM6BKxxbJi1oEUrwTY34c4KF7akI3IrQNXwyNR QEZ69DOgk4bSncEI4rVKbTUdmiyJ05pDoKbYZcm/V97RrrEQ+JtXJfQ0djg67eIMIMDP PnLd8ObbjbSyqFoGjsOx67ZOP7BhM/fS7CHh/xwI0rHIYJzBTi48wSNQIwzuuS31kHpB i3+fJzzmap5d6Vkv/th2juOJluQ9vgEgB2U5QI8dGOATtVPGRs/2VUHaoeEObwBNHXqI J3/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlh6MvYa4ZLyJLcFZtZ9IanzrhvSEg/aVsMdcK/C0SMah+8xLENv260O/4sylkXpfg/ZFZB
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.108.74 with SMTP id hi10mr3175146veb.14.1380238566508; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.64.201 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <5244C2C5.9010608@stpeter.im>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <B2706F01-E791-40AE-AC54-6DC7C3E2A0E3@mnot.net> <5244C2C5.9010608@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:36:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6issfhXWx-Tf--9ekh2VFb=QLyfBsFq-kb=f7D=kTPGpqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1130ca2e765b2b04e751d56a"
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-04
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:36:15 -0000
+1, I think the only sane thing is to list Douglas as an author since a large majority of the text is his. I was told to put it this way for now. -T On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 9/26/13 5:24 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > * Since this document is so similar to 4627, have you considered > > leaving Crockford on the author list? > > IMHO that is the right thing to do, unless he objects. The Area > Director might need to perform an AD-override on AUTH48 approvals if > Mr. Crockford has in fact disappeared or is uncommunicative. > > Peter > > - -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSRMLFAAoJEOoGpJErxa2p1HAQAJNQpOnjgHJJ/Vvn/4Rw4a3T > AuF3MFRN1c1rXa4a3vvAv/H64tXjgVZXbBzNQScB3P0F1jOdL1DGzeyCYQlSci30 > Nl1Kn3GF9aLFSaD7JkgnSOkTjkptQuZS9tj5ybm0ub9M8rQBXMPFRSCuzMczJOiV > ZuQyXbx2maSX/Nm1UIZo+wpFw34NnmE2+pTnBeIvclIY+LVJTmPkXoUvDW8Nq3WQ > Ng2klJ8f7Qyd6OFOitsdmci7xNuxqQgu8taZn1fHWJa9KsQ20xg41UoHKpI5+C6a > 4/xzBicLTKGLdJY6Fp+paXfxk6EL2P3EV0IFHI8E66B8cPi3x+y1/lfxDSH5Gl8z > M9uXbDj7s8FzKBFUc8trlyFk5cXbHcBv/yqJOQAK07UuWo95VGKbsVL8Z9VxnbPe > 2gQn83HRa04RfZUzEqUCGqoSIOQBIV0YqzLbRfowR7mI2sKCvo6v2fasGDLw19Ik > D4HH3uCaBbmPr04lGH+XdfOmAeSJdqsA9tVnmAL4/XmvyX7vzca6o5g2tzjqA2m6 > E3vWk9MEFBmx29tNU/etg1sLVQsKqIQmbyHLaQDmwl6Q2JZuNnI/0ugt+QARqngs > oXJNWtvXOsztaeS6HR1sqWWU+vHWRdV04wk3R24QnS/DrcYwg43m0TDIojBCQdCq > 9xElSZ6E1K7fhUHZNCKJ > =dz4j > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > 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