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

Anders Rundgren <> Mon, 01 August 2016 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7962112D1AE; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bnHm0WgCUx9p; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDA8C12D1A4; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q128so50971069wma.1; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xjo1l1knZuvp3MhEuMGHTvSy8Pmq1C9YHgVoNYAWMMM=; b=FIYD6LRnKJ6a3Dfn1qP6Q19OnO4F8gdSVgwv1cwckAYgaIHBhjQErIpS7U5kXY/dHN 3Sl+bkOXzEatloLTMppiLNu+HzQrL3jZB20s5Z1BwbbVDP7GPmjM+LcSktP7kTiYMJkp jqhDn4AeW7Ny4N7/z4+06SMsSaUoVjqPiSGZb3wk0GVlci6PrlhIcwuRoKms3Mnyna2n QAv2Al0698RQK+9PB9laf1dA1+WUrY6PYXHhFQxXcV0T7euzXlpcSB9+QyTKgRLQGjKY +KFOBKstJahaAyQyUfotZWVwvobSJEDKEt8AVD9UXzb67kzYLHJzBUdh8og4varbyDxV GM/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xjo1l1knZuvp3MhEuMGHTvSy8Pmq1C9YHgVoNYAWMMM=; b=aV7sG5s1RM8aiybydVTr269MEDxSu6Z6qXEZkRwuqibmrwdPH8S15u7lR70eWUOdY5 sBWSkmWGBAzHD47jlDnRbqYmdmVhV1fSVBLydVhPH0FV8mv3LBh1PkRRWAgYYqeMkU/w AfDyIiPbRnRWd6eft2fkjmv1j2A/hvx7tCcs3VH69I+zh3jtCFmreumF3TBPGJmpEFWI aOGdd8ce+r/SxKsNc6nopJlvG/Nwt+bfpN4zTVpgZb0tAanrDikQlcBCXG5HMrP4uyAt ZowUnrUX2afyDmoUPjbBlF8aXU9eM0NkvJB7iKDJowOx809h5ShbWg9xeZoREzBRDSah T7bA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouseaDgtNnqy9iZdKtTziUtDPbCwVATpipjz4o2toragwg6lJy+3JfMM7ElYXogJiQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id gn10mr49447527wjd.46.1470027507163; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id qe2sm28520867wjc.28.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <>, "Martin J. Dürst" <>, Julian Reschke <>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Anders Rundgren <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 06:58:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 04:58:36 -0000

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.


> 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 mailing list