Re: [Json] JSON Schema

[Henry Andrews <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Paul, this is very helpful.

My inclination for now is for JSON Schema to continue on its current course
as we are.  I do not think the current set of drafts are the right base to
start from.  Again, this just my personal view, but I'd like to work within
the JSON Schema community on its own more to solve some of the most obvious
problems before throwing it in a blender with other proposals.  I had not
intended on contacting the IETF about a working group for at least two more
drafts- I only started this thread due to a request.

There is also the question of whether I would be the right point person for
bringing JSON Schema into a working group.  I'm not sure I would be, so if
someone else steps up in the meantime or wants to start working on some
schema system and use JSON Schema as it is as one input, I would be fine
with that.  Honestly, nearly every comment from anyone (here or elsewhere)
that I've heard about the working group process has, um... not really
excited me about it.

So I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing, and note that I'm happy to help
if someone else wants to lead a schema working group of some sort.  If no
one steps up, I may eventually do so.  Otherwise I need to spend some time
thinking about which paths forward would be best for the JSON Schema
community.  And if a schema working group emerges and goes in a different
direction, I can look at how to help the JSON Schema community transition
towards that.

thanks,
-henry


On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> A few procedural notes to correct some misunderstandings. (Wearing no
> hats, just lots of scars from earlier IETF work on JSON and lots of other
> data formats...)
>
> On 21 Jan 2018, at 18:48, Henry Andrews wrote:
>
> So... the point of me sending this email was to answer a request made to
>> the JSON Schema project that I investigate the working group.  The clear
>> answer to that is that this working group is closed, and a new one would
>> need to be chartered.
>>
>
> If you want an IETF standard, yes.
>
> It's not clear to me that we would want to charter
>> such a group now, although I would be interested in anyone's input on
>> that.
>>
>
> There appears to be interest in something around schema for JSON; it is
> not clear if there is interest in starting from the specific spec at
> https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec. I bet there is some
> interest in that, and some interest in something else. This is quite
> typical of requests for the IETF to adopt work that originated outside the
> IETF, with mixed results in any of of "adopt with the intention of making
> only minor changes", "adopt and make major changes", and "start from
> scratch while getting inspiration from the existing work".
>
> The IETF sucks at this, as do most other SDOs. We're just more public
> about our suckage.
>
> There are several projects
>> underway in the same general space, some with quite a bit of momentum of
>> their own.  One of them may be a better choice for an IETF working group,
>> I'm not in a position to say one way or the other.
>>
>
> None of us are; that's what consensus is for.
>
> Filing issues or asking questions on our slack channel will probably work
>> better than hi-jacking this mailing list, now that I understand it is no
>> longer active. :-)
>>
>
> What you have done is *not* hijacking this mailing list: it's a completely
> appropriate use of it. And the list is active, as you have just seen. It's
> just not an IETF WG any more.
>
> I would be interested in pursuing the IETF process (heavyweight or not)
>>
>
> It will be the former :-(
>
> , if
>> there is interest from the appropriate segment of the IETF community.
>>
>
> This list is a good proxy for that appropriate segment. Everyone who is
> interested in this topic should feel free to use the mailing list for it.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>



-- 

   -

   *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
   [e-mail]
   <https://www.cloudflare.com/>

   1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
   -