Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 01 May 2016 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AAB12D193 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 14:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 LVUyCWk-CT43 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 14:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7255A12D144 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 May 2016 14:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 90so47092981qgz.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 May 2016 14:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=itNRvQapZTUmClg8s6e/QXrVy7LAKEf0Ybczw6C9kPM=; b=tVPKoCFVLX6LaysxNXanC73ucuWARWFx7KQaOxUIZOkmFLwq4m+PyPSTBdRLjp7jR9 bA8mSH1fAXn6RSsxWHplMqnP94ZqTf6YwL1bO5BBsug97+2y5pkhT6UpPVXJSMcPJEAg Ep3Zd+SdWGz/63+Jvy1zRpVsQhWYhqcrLedNNO+lVKZhQsxrEmaCZC7IYAAAPbKyR5Go sld0ivs+Zi+IGTUJfRFfvEm2+iCu2haewaHojzT631OvozuE/8XxvBdmX3afQq+0nvjI +d5gmyEnO9CTiTvdwFxSA5HQL8DRmETz6KzQSicQ8xmKOQbjJNjnpHM36dxU1OYAtSUO 4Ywg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=itNRvQapZTUmClg8s6e/QXrVy7LAKEf0Ybczw6C9kPM=; b=DqfhdSQ2W5Il9mZ5/2tvvo+YVJFEP7UiPYjoUzyFp/KqWkJNMLD72zjiikBYnRe/JX bMGiDnjNxaAkW+ld0XRzuLOb+JKqLkox0O5SqtMeSh9GVfIEy9UY2s7lVmFjDmfLk/Ov GL7ZdARj8UU25b3ouTqPP9iLFjqMIgQQFSvEpcUL1ZOA46EihZT591UxO19J5q96mDUm RbvznUnkxHzZdMYb+4DSiABmtdMNucDF5G1BOGGXeuVlgUhz2sKM1MCkR9n6LUPcsGmO iWixhJVQT1tedFjdqrzsmtJvr+DtFCZ7cGu2aETR/vx6rAYTepdqHb23AKDfERIeoJWv yGWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV+49VGrK/RBwzMRMm9xDhL3mzitJ8fvakg63xDfmiVaHoKoYgqzYTJqFyI5xS1OEATRwsZ01GuhdmsRQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.94.169 with SMTP id g38mr28807722qge.35.1462136305807; Sun, 01 May 2016 13:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.94.201 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2016 13:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.248.61]
In-Reply-To: <978CE59C-19EA-44E0-8AA9-620B854ACB6F@cisco.com>
References: <CAHBU6iu0j492Mzbo2HriFtjm_o5516yCsQCX9PGHvqAxhU0Zjg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6isb+A4crvdEMkMqhreXLcox3Q5O-TJeOYvb4vvUqYupmg@mail.gmail.com> <978CE59C-19EA-44E0-8AA9-620B854ACB6F@cisco.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 13:58:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivnZ5x1vno61jTH8ou4PhNesVf9eb5TA_wb_3GEqEsQxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a368c1f095a0531ce2336
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/E309cd6cZu13onbl-9p4FcEdnLk>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 01 May 2016 21:58:28 -0000

Never seen anything quite like this in an RFC, but it doesn’t feel crazy or
damaging.

I share the opinion expressed by others here that ECMA-404 is largely
ignored and of marginal relevance, but I gather there’s a perceived benefit
in establishing that ECMA & IETF are in sync on this subject.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:

> Going back to an earlier point in the thread:
>
> On 11/14/15, 11:10 AM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
> >So, is there a *real* reason why a normative reference might be useful? I
> think there might be, and it's purely rhetorical (in the formal sense,
> designed to support an argument): To make it clear to the world
> > that all JSON is the same JSON no matter where it's specified.  So I
> think it would be plausible to add the following to the second paragraph of
> section 1.2 of 7159 (for convenience:
> >http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 ):
> >
> >“The reference to ECMA-404 in the previous sentence is normative, not
> with the usual meaning that implementors need to consult it in order to
> understand this document, but to emphasize that there are no
> inconsistencies in the definition of the term “JSON text” in any of its
> specifications. Note, however, that ECMA-404 allows several practices which
> this specification recommends avoiding in the interests of maximal
> interoperability.”
>
> I like this text a lot.  Adding a few more points would be useful, I
> believe:
>
> - The intent is that the grammar is the same between the two documents,
> although different descriptions are used.  If there a difference is found
> between them, ECMA and the IETF will work together to update both documents.
>
> - If an error is found with either document, the other should be examined
> to see if it has a similar error, and fixed if possible.
>
> - If either document is changed in the future, ECMA and the IETF will work
> together to ensure that the two documents stay aligned through the change.
>
>
> There is liaison work to do to ensure that ECMA-404bis has similar
> language, but I wouldn't have any problem with us publishing a 7159bis
> draft that included language like this before ECMA is fully onboard.
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>



-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)