Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

On 2016-08-01 03:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I don't think that trust enters into the equation here.

The obvious solution is removing the ECMA reference. Not because
"The IETF has a problem with ECMA", but because the idea of having
two organizations being authoritative/normative for a standard is
pointless unless they work together on a single document.

ECMA should consider referencing the RFC instead of duplicating it.

Anders

>
> A standards document, be it from IETF, or from some other organization, should
> be complete before being considered for final review.  This is not the case
> for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 because one of its normative references
> is not available for review in the form that it needs to be to support
> draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.  Trust in ECMA or WG chairs or ADs is no
> substitute for having an actual document to review.
>
> If there is trust involved it would be trusting that ECMA doesn't turn around
> and remove the reciprocal language in a future  revision of ECMA-404.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 07/30/2016 03:13 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a mood to
>> trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs.
>>
>> (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the
>> reference to the ECMA side removed.)
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>> On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we
>>>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated
>>>> publish of the two documents.  But having our side ready to go,
>>>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in
>>>> that process.
>>>
>>> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism
>>> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it
>>> also contains the change we expect.
>>>
>>>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not
>>>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC
>>>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a
>>>> downref.
>>>>
>>>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to
>>>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)?  That would make it *very* clear
>>>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in
>>>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing.
>>>
>>> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>
>>> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> json mailing list
>>> json@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>> .
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>