Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis

[Stefan Hagen <[e-mail]>]

On 09/01/17 11:06, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> On 2017-01-09 10:59, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Jan 2017, at 19:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/08/2017 12:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>> Hi Julian,
>>>>
>>>>> On 7 Jan 2017, at 15:35, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just noticed that the document went to state "Publication
>>>>> Requested" early December, with no notification of the working
>>>>> group, and (IMHO) some of the few feedback that the document
>>>>> received during WG LC being ignored (such as
>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg03945.html>
>>>>> and
>>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg03978.html>).
>>>>>
>>>>> What's going on here?
>>>>
>>>> I moved it to the Publication Requested state in datatracker in
>>>> order to get the document done and get the WG closed. Negotiations
>>>> with the WG chair and document editor are ongoing. WGLC comments
>>>> will be handled (or at least replied to).
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Alexey
>>>
>>> Progress on this document was waiting for progress on ECMA 404.  I
>>> don't see
>>> that anything has happened with ECMA 404, so this document can't
>>> progress.
>>
>> It is quite the opposite: If the document doesn't progress, ECMA is
>> not going to do anything.
>
> Which highlights the impossibility having two normative standards for
> the same thing.
> Dropping the references to ECMA is the only sensible way forward.

respecting substantial back and forth to create the best possible 
specification is one thing, accepting merely formal shall I stay, or 
shall I go, I really don't know kind of discussions is another.
So I am +0 with Anders here to avoid further erosion of human forces in 
the field - if I may bluntly put it that way in a language foreign to me.

"Stefan"