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

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 03 July 2013 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDEFE11E80CC for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.429
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufebbCATeSgz for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974E521F994B for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,990,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="156140708"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2013 20:29:07 +0000
Received: from mctiny.local ([]) by (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: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 22:29:04 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <>
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 <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nico Williams <>, Paul Hoffman <>, " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed minimal change for duplicate names in objects
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: 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.


> 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.