IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sat, 15 March 2014 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC701A0236 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.753
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnHfJpoz9_a1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (unknown [69.163.253.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F851A0230 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96ECE6B0078 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=F3XYz/FHou9YPYM/OAVd G3BvemA=; b=eE5YDgsbiHNsaQfiQoI0kMThQCI8M9papBav+rgWNXemrVGDVU/1 MUK4oCF7ISvoE056wOKFPZLXl1lsms7UiOJ08v0sAmOv13h2gJRs1UWhrnQ8uxRk jl+6ziBWi0hBRcHJYvGDyRLce0OvFssEMM8OgEfnY8fisNiL9PWbbpY=
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com (mail-we0-f169.google.com [74.125.82.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a72.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BB4B6B0059 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id w62so2834726wes.0 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+oDDqyLnYJZ0ZYsKm8WYNMc08v4+NGY4YKfbKjkQip8=; b=Xyf4tVnYb3ws4Czo1cs1N3Ru1BIltLKwCypBeX/oCnQo5vZjQtK9QDKNkoQT9aUCsk aQuTiHAxNrpxSl/pLyMTSeNeqAytHjeewKS0yG+X373wvthJqFD5pQlDXzz8UoIHuuYl QxpGdfT6C0HZApWzwsT2E/ZW0OrOZZ1hRYvgy2KNvmoLqQa2ThR7+boYBHF2EUNwvYXB nuXz7PjEdTwbtTDqnqmjb3RY8KyEmGTYUVkMfS6JNlBu2x5IWBpMQDBWmGrIcG/4LPWZ E72CueWc3l/jji6YFSPcQyrpBu3LR/p6gz/Ib3Rkyi4fIPpfQsFTmT/aaZrZj6Nnkdtj dIfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.102.42 with SMTP id fl10mr935946wib.42.1394852529962; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.199.6 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D93BF076-90B2-4AF0-BDD6-29BF4332AABF@vpnc.org>
References: <53238F2E.5010105@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itv0q7ZTrran+dKTcUxoSxNHYnND7yLmSPF35--iUMA+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi6Ha0r55vb3VNsgz40Bds6HYZ-aM9u-JwyVmoRDuZaWw@mail.gmail.com> <420F0699-9F27-435E-924C-28966A743EAF@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6iv=pUmq1Jdi+VkFnEG0+Ef7pBnSMtPdVNaHFxu6x5RFBQ@mail.gmail.com> <D93BF076-90B2-4AF0-BDD6-29BF4332AABF@vpnc.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:02:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhqfJWX747jZs40amrdRV5T3aTxrMHsCvW-5jdN9zq40w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Cg8uMySLCv0eSYND2-eg4tg2ITs
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <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: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:02:19 -0000

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>> Actually, I think it is relevant.  If someone were to show an example of an RFC where a hypothetical nomenclature/schema spec would have made the RFC better, that would be a really good argument in the current charter discussion.
>
> Phill's proposal is to change the protocol from using ASN.1 to JSON. That's a discussion for the other WG, not here.

That's not Phil's proposal.  Look carefully!  Search for "array" and
"object" in the RFC.

(I also wondered wth Phil was talking about when I glanced at that RFC.)

Nico
--

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status