Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

Tony Hansen <tony@ATT.COM> Wed, 20 February 2013 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 0E41C21F8984 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:56:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.377, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HZszgh2P6VyV for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D5D21F88EF for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:56:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id e4c15215.0.271508.00-280.765767.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from <tony@att.com>); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:56:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 51251c4e29fb3591-a04795860cacfdf5539b7d004e6ee333e52dcf0b
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KIuD0L003519 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:56:14 -0800
Received: from fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (fflint03.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.63]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KIu8YR003395 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:56:10 -0800
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:55:50 -0800
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1KItndS001993 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:55:49 -0500
Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1KIteQb000801 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:55:41 -0500
Received: from [135.70.29.22] (vpn-135-70-29-22.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.29.22]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20130220185432gw100632n1e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:54:32 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.29.22]
Message-ID: <51251C2A.4030501@att.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:55:38 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@ATT.COM>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <tony@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=IcMwrxWa c=1 sm=0 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=5AE5csG8RS0A:10 a=djqtFF5C5r8A:10 a=lVdhOp8B8YAA:10 a=ofM]
X-AnalysisOut: [gfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=zQP7CpK]
X-AnalysisOut: [OAAAA:8 a=Vq4NU9Hifv4A:10 a=m9rGlshOAAAA:8 a=lhK04cLjTUmVy]
X-AnalysisOut: [T7BXCAA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=3tVY_Mm33XkA:10]
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:56:16 -0000

On 2/20/2013 1:43 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>> There are places where RFC 4627 has SHOULDs where some processors do one thing and others do something different. That should be cleaned up in a standards-track RFC, and it should be done with lots of JSON developers and users having a discussion that comes to rough consensus.
> One I-D as simple as this hardly justifies a WG.

Countercase in point: the imapmove working group.  It had one document, 
was chartered in 7/2012, and lived for a total of 6 months until it 
successfully shut down in 1/2013.

     Tony Hansen