Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 16 October 2013 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7521521F849C for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.984
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKi4pmlXfgZk for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9163311E8182 for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u14so911619lbd.16 for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xoh6Wg1ZzlpCx1eb5NqbKF9BQmywkWGWg2ENmOceDbc=; b=MxAMOlNoxA8ZnXjvJA6hl0L0F1nHrxhjNGysPxCZ/2FDOxESbj+NYdGms9GaUg33+c V4IPBNOA81833FfpxliXoOBABgW2KAKMztc/6DpqL5SN/zaM6LpEM8OhfOH2w+vcUZGO 7vX99HlpLtEnhfxh0z6vItaoJw+S4JCLgLCfcwxuv/HpXrB973GAmEcpBhdnzfLQ325Y CsYmImIvndRFeWzTHBOk1JfHtAbcQaEq1qrpgZtErv25jigxDX8i7qw/BF+pR+Ry7Xwm SeMIRsfq00C8DeC3aQlhapYrwpFYzxemO5wAvLukTGpIJnS+3jY5R/FMfY5cZh92Q3Ku NFiA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id kj7mr2234498lac.43.1381944087270; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:21:27 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -TrJg_LA4F0rGSoVPQQMsxsZH38
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: JSON WG <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Possible next work for the WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:21:32 -0000

> Greetings again. While our AD ponders the 4627bis document
> (probably on its way to IETF Last Call), the Working Group can
> start to think about what it wants to do next, if anything. The
> chairs have heard of at least four topics that the WG might or
> might not want to add to its charter:
> - Best practices document for JSON implementers and folks who
> use JSON in protocols

As I've mentioned, I'd like to do a document about guidelines for
defining JSON objects in other documents/protocols, to make sure that
we use JSON primitives for those definitions, and don't try to
duplicate JSON grammar in ABNF.  See Section 6.2 of
draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13 (currently in the RFC Editor queue)
for an example, and look at Section 6.1.1 of version -12 of that
document for the ABNF version of how I think it should NOT be done.

Such a document could be on its own, or it could be part of the best
practices document Paul mentioned.