IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 11 October 2013 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 4B7B611E810D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 V+42J6kvAUTI for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:30 -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 8A59611E810E for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9B2XRu0018548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.185] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iseLxLy0QXJhcKyz8MOi-KGy18p5gFo7yvrS=NeRLUvAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:33:27 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67D6E87F-45F6-4C8F-B9D4-5672780C0925@vpnc.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF4E2DB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <20131011014141.15895.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAHBU6iseLxLy0QXJhcKyz8MOi-KGy18p5gFo7yvrS=NeRLUvAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Matthew Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
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, 11 Oct 2013 02:33:31 -0000

<no hat>

On Oct 10, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> I’m OK with John’s changes, except for the MAY variation in section 9.  The second half, with all the instances of lower-case “may”, is talking about implementation behavior.  I had read it as advice for the reader as for what implementations might do.  So turning those into MAY means that they normatively describe behavior of conforming implementations.  Are we really OK with that?  My instinct is that, since this spec has held together pretty well all these years, why don’t we leave this alone?  -T

Either is fine. The use of RFC 2119 MAYs are a humorously fertile flowerbed of contention.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email