Re: [Json] Proposal to move forward on acceptable roots

Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com> Fri, 30 May 2014 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <cromis@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 B02D81A03C6 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:26:20 -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 9m2Ya2VimTUu for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9A21A011D for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id k48so2351222wev.19 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:26:14 -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:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Du6DjuV6OCWKSo+LxCFZcfnTHb3j7MpTGrM0uIkT/NI=; b=eOKeX1Uwoqiru8xrCRbzZ+2DqxmqtB7NJcjWoBSyEg0vUFf1ShszWh+A5APr+tr/fg IWgbe9hGmgzfVkmuU+nSVbh/veMv2Qq5Rt/wtp0qNlWG3WnRf+Dxi8nNU7LuT6o5OPDR UXz2Cz+avaRc4yUYLQXOrcjPCbwc5RTijIV8WnqBtVPA6hOz0GFrXpUxfJVBqvCQwg9d UIAyzeSJORJqR1itjKEXYJyCAdCIt/vslcEPQ/jMFBC8fmjGJI6HGu7q/R0LzcM7RDbZ 9s8/Vq5e3WpOvL78TrisdT2y1U/Csbp6P9XfmaE8G1aktiZitREmj0CV/X8/9LG6U3Rt 4OSg==
X-Received: by 10.180.78.71 with SMTP id z7mr9054895wiw.14.1401470774010; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: cromis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.217.141.203 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6it-+QvLb=UyRCLRyuUrTcLpZnqyVs76tBNADj1mWGmK0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CFAE0A52.4C56C%jhildebr@cisco.com> <CAHBU6it-+QvLb=UyRCLRyuUrTcLpZnqyVs76tBNADj1mWGmK0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:25:53 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: I6OKw6bzXhHaF-FfGSeUMGvLrac
Message-ID: <CAO1wJ5Rfh-MBHW-JXQSeD5FDWFc2688Gwha89aeopsoa59b67w@mail.gmail.com>
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/7BwzJb0eMC75c0Bjbr-NmJ8OKqA
Cc: "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposal to move forward on acceptable roots
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: <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, 30 May 2014 17:26:20 -0000

I think non-normative (but strong) advice to use an object at the
top-level and have must-ignore semantics (unless you have a really
solid reason for doing otherwise) is an excellent idea. In particular
advising the use of strings for 64-bit integers and pushing for
ISO8601 for dates/times could help library authors converge on the
encodings they use, which would definitely help interoperability. You
could also include advice on binary encoding (presumably base-64). Not
that JSON is a great format for binary data, but sometimes that's what
you've got.

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> This doesn’t sound insane. I’ll try, over the next few days, to draft such a
> section.  If nothing good emerges, I think staying with the current language
> is still a good outcome.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
> <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> One way we could go on the topic of what goes in the root that would work
>> for me would be for us to add a non-normative section to I-JSON giving
>> protocol design advice, and move the issue of potential incompatibility of
>> non-[object,array] roots to that section.
>>
>> Into that section, we can also put some suggestions about how to encode
>> integers, floats, and dates in strings, how to do forward-compatibility
>> with objects (MUST ignore what you don't understand), and whatever other
>> pearls of wisdom we come up with.
>>
>> Yes, I know that will make the document take longer, and open up other
>> areas for us to argue about.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Hildebrand
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
>
>
> --
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>