Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 20 February 2013 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 4D9661F0D0A for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:02:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XoVOy5G6lE5S for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48721F0C4E for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KJ2E7r093225 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:02:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:02:14 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
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 19:02:16 -0000

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>>> My proposal is: do nothing.
>> 
>> -1.
>> 
>> There are places where RFC 4627 has SHOULDs where some processors do one thing and others do something different. That should be cleaned up in a standards-track RFC, and it should be done with lots of JSON developers and users having a discussion that comes to rough consensus.
> 
> One I-D as simple as this hardly justifies a WG.

Getting broad consensus on changing a standard that is implemented widely outside the IETF justifies the effort to have the time and space for consensus. This is *not* just IETF work.

--Paul Hoffman