Re: [Json] Consensus call: document title

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 21 June 2013 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7AC21F9FDA for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.02
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TcPDpCYibn8 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::229]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E7221F9FA4 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p13so6234607vbe.14 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Hl9adQ5218wUNya/jIN5zohc9GuWFlQC+eYEheOQ3pA=; b=fJmxTNy493EXuXoJ/naITSyyhM60xHimXFMCrwmvodjktmgho5mlvnOUsPXix13acl P8RTFIiG+6raHi9kTaUlpnMOAP/rr0DyEBeOa1NeJ5i1HlCl6yGpcPaF4D9J/SZ+kBUT NPEMRB2c3O9ojNy3m5/ZDQSanBlyNzSXRHRchA3sMl4AyNAm36653pUWQnCXeTC1wQRX AR2ddgPUZODuH8nPWWj9XjoZNkJ4AuU9klNqsK3vBkbX5rUrxRR40DsLMfgV3E1QAWS6 U2daXn9ecD34UpoJ4o2yKMW2HVdBgYPBn2wEaY/2QzgnXKBM2uQccAnyjCsi/r5l1p9y P5MQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id x5mr6559328vei.11.1371842385490; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:19:45 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Vt0PU-67BzouH_YQ9BbK5QmNRcc
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [Json] Consensus call: document title
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:19:46 -0000

> I think this call is premature. We first need to determine which document we are
> producing. That will determine the title. If we are making The JSON Data
> Interchange Format document, then it should obviously have that title. But if we
> are changing the status of the RFC, then it should retain its current title.

Procedural point:

This is certainly a valid opinion (that we shouldn't change the title
as we replace the document), but there's no *procedural* reason that
the title can't or shouldn't be changed in the process of changing the
status, as long as we're making changes and issuing a new RFC.

The only time the title *couldn't* be changed would be if we were
actually changing *only* the status metadata, and not publishing a new