Re: [Json] Last call: JSON charter

So if TC 39 asks nicely for a minor  change to the document that would
otherwise prevent  them from using the new RFC as a normative  reference -- 
even if the change makes no technical change to the specification -- 
such requests should be rejected because they aren't " minimal change" or 
correcting errors?

(see http://masinter.blogspot.com/2013/03/standardizing-json_25.html 

Anne van Kesteren: 
"FWIW, XMLHttpRequest references TC39's version of JSON which is completely self-contained and without known errors. Not really sure why the IETF feels there's a need to publish that version independently."

http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/

at least some of the commenters wanted to make sure there was
only one JSON standard, not two.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: json-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:json-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:04 AM
> To: json@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Json] Last call: JSON charter
> 
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <jhildebr@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Please review and send your final comments on the proposed charter for a
> > potential JSON working group:
> >
> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON
> >
> >
> > If you have been participating on the list, please chime in on this thread
> > even if you have already said you agree with that text.
> 
> The proposed text as it stands today seems fine to me.
> 
> (To reiterate what I said to Larry's proposal: I would likely object to adding
> wording about other SDOs to this charter.)
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json