IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 14 October 2015 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 13FEE1B2B26 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 P3MKoUzSvMq6 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22b.google.com (mail-vk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B034E1B2B24 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkha6 with SMTP id a6so22986275vkh.2 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1hdd5zZU92PG4M+o0UEDEQwxG4iQhSTQzXCiDFapatI=; b=vWiqw7wzuoRVqX7E6ZhTiuyaqy5s5vvucRTYcII1zhXEh3B5mx/NXoDxS+jgbSxB94 bSmxSwWSmbUizTzK0QOikW32sy2vd/aN1b0q5xeMHi5jKQHD0iac9I/7COXxYo0k6YHv ZyRhdkARhaxPkWt1wyVdHULpDKMoElru47zMWytEy18aECb3bcTIOW4DsrSXb//euyyM VeuoztPhNWYW8AV5ueTxQswgOeujTBlrVrtu0LxQ0DfDY6D7E0OhzXeAHGVwm7P4SKVk H3htT5CCgTGHHdAaI4uyE4/UeK7rsjQxno+xUtE+pWixYXJYBsp+f59o6+b8PyCywTNf hj4A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.192.9 with SMTP id q9mr611482vkf.63.1444796549935; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.31.54.65 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iv_w_O95Nq-bU1z2GOKgouuGrMbZP4Uwio25pPtFCc3UQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DB74C466-D542-42D6-95B0-690A564435A9@cisco.com> <CAC4RtVD3cKThDTr_eS-QCUhKqZkMS0y+nPS5HxCk3f1RQ7VyJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iv_w_O95Nq-bU1z2GOKgouuGrMbZP4Uwio25pPtFCc3UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:22:29 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PuiejzSsY7ECJYctk235DEau7BM
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+==5_mstrgHEd7bUGzSo85Er9VR_zEaJ+gh-O+zSpK=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/6fa9Kwao1qP8PeHpPEJ56MtjzWk>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:22:32 -0000

>> > In a nutshell, the goal of this effort is to produce a bis to 7159 that:
>> >
>> > * promotes JSON to IETF Internet Standard
>> > * references ECMA-404 and is a reference for ECMA-404
>> >
>> > Tim Bray has agreed to edit 7159bis.
>> >
>> > As a start, I propose we start with rfc7159 and:
>> >
>> > 1) Apply verified errata from <
>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159
>> > 2) Change the reference to ECMA-404 from informative to normative
>>
>> Can we get a first version of this before the I-D cutoff for Yoko
>> (this coming Monday, 19 Oct)?
>
> Sure, but isn’t a consensus call on the substantive change to the spec in
> order?

That could be done by posting an I-D to make the proposal, and have
the working group review it and comment on it.  Right now, there's
just a "here's what we plan to do", and there've been a few comments
about that.  Specific text to review might help, no?

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email