Re: [Json] draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03: recommendation to use UTF-8

I hadn't thought of it as an appeal, but I do think the current
document state should be "Approved, Announcement to be Sent" with a
substate of "Revised I-D Needed".  If an appeal is what's needed to
change that, then... yeah, sure.

Barry

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Alexey,
>
> I believe Julian and Barry's notes constitute an appeal of the Protocol
> Action, and I think they're probably right. Please rescind it, publish the
> new draft, and give people a bit to review. No need for another formal LC,
> but doing this in a note to the RFC Editor isn't kosher.
>
> pr
>
>
> On 18 Jul 2017, at 13:04, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Julian here: this is not a change that's
>> appropriate to do in an RFC Editor note.  The change is probably fine,
>> but draft revisions are cheap and it's easy enough to post a revised
>> I-D to make sure we can all see the final version in context.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2017-07-18 10:05, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Julian,
>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Jul 2017, at 08:52, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-07-17 18:33, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> The JSONBIS WG decided to update recommendation on Unicode encoding to
>>>>>> be UTF-8. (For details see the RFC Editor's notes in the approval
>>>>>> message that will be sent out shortly.) This took a bit of time to
>>>>>> debate in the WG, so the document approval took a bit longer than
>>>>>> originally expected.
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Alexey, as the responsible AD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The last WG mail related to this topic is over 2 months old, and I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> see any declaration of consensus.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be good if the chair would send a summary about what's going
>>>>> on
>>>>> to the WG mailing list before anything gets finalized.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I note that
>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/> has
>>>>> been
>>>>> saying "Revised ID Needed" for 48 days, and I was under the assumption
>>>>> that
>>>>> there'd be indeed a revised ID).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just posted a message on this: this is approved with updated RFC
>>>> Editor
>>>> notes. See the approval message once it is sent.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not how it's supposed to work. Please have a new I-D posted and
>>> get
>>> people to review the changes in context. This is a *very* important piece
>>> of
>>> standards work - we need to make sure it meets quality standards.
>>>
>>> From a quick glance at
>>>
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/writeup/>, I
>>> already note that the appendix "Changes from RFC 7159" is now incomplete.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> json mailing list
>>> json@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json