Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 4, 2013, at 8:42 PM, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:57:05AM +0000, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> Comments:
> 
> - s/rfc4727/rfc4627/g  (the link to the attachment says 4727)

That's actually not part of the response we are sending, so there is nothing we can change. Yes, the link is wrong in the Liaison tool, but we'll just have to live with that.

> - I don't think we ought to demand anything more than stability for
>   normatively referencing ECMA-404.  In particular it seems odd to
>   demand that the other SDO (ECMA) establish open processes before
>   we'll consider referencing their documents -- a demand of that sort
>   ought to be backed up by a statement (as a published RFC) from the
>   IESG and/or IAB, not from a WG.
> 
>   I know, you said "[the IETF] _almost_ exclusively...".
> 
>   Are you asking the WG to demand that the ECMA commit to open
>   processes in regards to TC39's future updates of ECMA-404?  Is that a
>   consensus call?

I don't think any of the wording in the response "demands" anything. Ecma made a request, and we are turning down the request for stated reasons. People in the WG discussion expressed consternation with ECMA-404, and the undertone was that they expected it to be developed in an IETF-like fashion. It's fine that Ecma didn't do that, of course, but it is also fine for us to base our decision on their process. Having said that, which sentences about "demands" were you referring to?

> Is there documentation of "official" attempts to contact ECMA TC39.
> (I'm not sure what that would look like.)

Matt and I were told about it by at least three different people in the IETF leadership. It (thankfully) happened at a different layer.

>> We know that some TC39 members joined the JSON WG mailing list but did
>> not voice any process concerns in the WG -- or privately to the WG
>> Chairs -- before or during either of the Last Calls on the document.
> 
> I've certainly seen complaints about direction or specific consensus
> calls.  Were any by TC39 members?  I'd not know.  Were they about
> process?  Perhaps if asked for clarification those voicing concerns
> might specify the process as a source of concern.

You can determine who is a TC39 member by looking at their roster.

--Paul Hoffman