Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

>  “Normative Reference” has a very specific meaning, and that meaning
clearly does not apply in this case.

That conclusion is not clear to me. Can you explain?

- Rob

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> [I'll post a 7159bis with errata by end-of-day whether I get an answer on
> the errata-wonkery or not.  Now, returning to the meat of the discussion.]
>
> I have really major heartburn with introducing a Normative Reference to
> ECMA404 in 7159bis.  Because language in standards documents should be used
> carefully, and “Normative Reference” has a very specific meaning, and that
> meaning clearly does not apply in this case.  However, since there is
> apparently a feeling that there is some benefit to the community in
> achieving “standards harmony”, let me propose three ways forward:
>
> 1. Include a normative reference to ECMA404, but accompany it with text
> explaining that this reference is marked normative because it is considered
> authoritative in the community of JavaScript language specifiers, not in
> the normal sense of “normative”; there is no necessity to read it in order
> too understand or implement RFC7159bis, nor does it specify any
> technology which must be present in an implementation that is not also
> described in 7159bis.”
>
> 2. Do not include a normative reference, but expand the note about ECMA404
> in Section 1.2 to emphasize that ECMA404 may be considered authoritative in
> the community of JavaScript implementers.
>
> 3. Conclude that this effort has no observable benefit to the community
> implementing JSON on the Internet and abandon the RFC7159bis project.
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> wrote:
>
>> >>> Sure, but isn’t a consensus call on the substantive change to the
>> spec in
>> >>> order?
>> >>
>> >> That could be done by posting an I-D to make the proposal, and have
>> >> the working group review it and comment on it.  Right now, there's
>> >> just a "here's what we plan to do", and there've been a few comments
>> >> about that.  Specific text to review might help, no?
>> >
>> > RFC 7159 has the following verified errata:
>> >
>> > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=3915
>> > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=4264
>> > * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159&eid=4336
>> >
>> > I suggest at the least an I-D be published that applies these.
>>
>> That works for me.
>>
>> As to the other, specific text proposed on the list will give people
>> something to discuss.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>