Re: [Json] Proposed Wording for New WG Charter

Hello Matt, others,

On 2014/03/18 07:17, Matt Miller wrote:
> Greetings again.  We earlier asked a couple of questions to gauge what
> the new proposed WG charter ought to contain.  That feedback has been
> valuable, but has drilled into implementation specifics before a new
> charter was actually agreed on!  We have been chastised by our AD about
> this, and for good reason.  We think we already have enough input from
> the London meeting and the list over the past few days to make the
> following proposal for a new charter:
>
> ==========================
>
> Javascript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based,
> language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the
> ECMAScript Programming Language Standard, and was later published in RFC
> 7159.

"was later published" sounds as if it wasn't published before RFC 7159. 
I suggest to change this to "is published", which avoids such implications.

> The WG will work on an restricted profile of JSON designed to maximize
> interoperability. The work will start from draft-bray-i-json-01.

Okay.

> The WG will work on a format for a streamable sequence of JSON texts.
> The work will start from draft-williams-json-text-sequence-00.

There have been various discussions about such an idea, and various 
details of it, on the WG list. However, as far as I'm aware, the 
question of whether this should be part of the WG's work wasn't brought 
up, and has not been discussed. I'm therefore quite surprised to see 
this here, and request that it be retracted and if necessary discussed 
separately before being included in a charter proposal.

As to substance, I strongly oppose the addition of this work item to the 
WG charter. In my understanding, the need for such a format is marginal 
at best (*), and putting it on the WG charter would tie up significant 
resources that can be better used elsewhere. Standardizing such a format 
would also cause needless confusion in the JSON ecosystem. (#)

Regards,    Martin.

(*) In particular in open exchange on the Internet.
(#) I can already hear questions and discussions such as "Should we use 
an array or a sequence here?" and "What about sequences inside arrays?" 
and so on.

> Milestones:
>
> IETF Last Call for restricted profile:  June 2014
> IETF Last Call for text sequences:      June 2014
>
> ==========================
>
> We note that there is no noticeable consensus around adding work on a
> single nomenclature / schema. There appears to be some interest in the
> WG coming up with some wording that says "the WG is not going to pick
> one yet, and we think that ABNF is certainly the wrong one". If someone
> wants to write up a draft with this kind of wording, we don't need to
> have it as a charter item: it could just be a message from the WG to the
> IESG, and they can ask us more if they want.
>
>
> --Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>