Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDEFE11E80CC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufebbCATeSgz for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974E521F994B for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1061; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372883348; x=1374092948; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KYmgBh+SrvODt6JtBkgOhGnyuE4FYRdkR7hhhIU+V1Q=; b=aRVb6NHeWm52Pj97kQqoX007lKRk0GPTRtUyTdkhemD6RKBzHckPA9ti xSo5GlxNR0CWoTzWG6Id9xjBLZJ7Cpbm69E/c4VvjUk/TU1xHSB4G0sIA EzIoGTOHxo1X3ikbXwubW7xMtSClWpAhannjJSXJSekiNkZqEkkz1T/g/ k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFALSI1FGQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABagwmEA70vgQgWdIIjAQEBAwEjVQEQCw4KAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECASsaBg0BBwEBiAUGqQ2RDoEmjQ6BNweCUYEcA5dJkUWDEzqBLQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,990,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="156140708"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2013 20:29:07 +0000
Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.175.226]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r63KT4JL024504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:29:05 GMT
Message-ID: <51D48990.7090305@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:29:04 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <B86E1D4B-1DC8-4AD6-B8B3-E989599E0537@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOj3MNNhjwo2bMa5CgoqynzMRVvviBXC8szxt5D17Z7FDg@mail.gmail.com> <51D3C63C.5030703@cisco.com> <51D48023.1020008@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <51D48023.1020008@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org WG" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 20:29:14 -0000

On 7/3/13 9:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Speaking strictly as a participant, and just to give guidance, not
> insist on an outcome.

Same.

>
> Let's remember the meaning of these capitalized words in IETF
> parlance. We use them "where it is actually required for
> interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing
> harm." So a MUST would mean that not doing so would prevent
> interoperation or cause harm. RECOMMENDED (like SHOULD) would also
> mean that not doing so would prevent interoperation or cause harm, but
> "that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
> ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood
> and carefully weighed before choosing a different course."

I have to say that ambiguity of a language implies an introduction to
interoperability problems.  But MUST we use MUST in those cases?   I
would prefer the catch the problem when we have the opportunity.  If the
WG feels differently, Meh.  As Nico said, deal with it at a higher layer.

Eliot