IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 3DFA121F88F1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:30:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LfqB6emNcTIo for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-bl2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8670621F86BA for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD006.protection.gbl (10.173.161.200) by BL2FFO11HUB039.protection.gbl (10.173.160.245) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.620.12; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:30:00 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD006.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.620.12 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:30:00 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.96]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:29:30 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
Thread-Index: AQHODzYddsZobCY4qEWkoFxnlmNwu5iC7eAAgAACizA=
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:29:29 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436747A9DC@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CAChr6SxNLJ8kqsMUjiMMhx9w-quUkqEbpPjMF5fF-02jyUNPrQ@mail.gmail.com> <734F6B55-2AA7-44A6-A636-7221C8518479@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <734F6B55-2AA7-44A6-A636-7221C8518479@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.33]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(24454001)(13464002)(377454001)(16406001)(66066001)(50986001)(59766001)(77982001)(49866001)(79102001)(65816001)(56776001)(47976001)(80022001)(5343635001)(47736001)(20776003)(4396001)(23726001)(74662001)(44976002)(54356001)(51856001)(46406002)(5343655001)(31966008)(63696002)(56816002)(47776003)(76482001)(50466001)(33656001)(54316002)(74502001)(46102001)(53806001)(55846006)(47446002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB039; H:TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 07630F72AD
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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, 20 Feb 2013 16:30:10 -0000

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: json-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:json-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:20 AM
To: R S
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:47 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> My suggestion is for the WG to target this use case only, and to treat 
> the JSON processing rules in ECMAScript 5, Section 15.12 (The JSON
> Object) as the baseline for rules regarding encoding and decoding, 
> rather than RFC4627.

It feels weird to be agreeing with Rob so early in the discusson, but I agree on both parts.

- Charter 4627bis *and nothing else*, so that the 4627bis work is done without distraction. It is really clear that canonicalization and schema/description have the *high* potential for distraction.

- Say that the base for that one charter item is RFC 4627 *and* ECMAScript 5, which seems to be widely-deployed.

- Say that the WG is likely to recharter while 4627bis is under review by the IESG to discuss schema/description.

- Given the recent consensus, don't mention canonicalization in the charter at all unless another WG or SDO has specifically asked us to work on it.

--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email